Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive 8

I came across the Jan Dzierżon article on the talk pages of other users and attempted to copyedit and clean up the namespace. I also posited some questions and ideas on the talk page, but it seems my edits are frowned upon. I do not anticipate being able to copyedit the article further, so I have removed it from my watchlist. I mention the article here because there has been recent dispute with it, and others might be able to provide their expertise. Olessi 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of archival Polish newspapers, online: [1] -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Please consider the validity of the article horilka which is voted for deletion now. Although I voted "delete" basing on article content, I am aware that I am not an expert. Also there may be important information in Ukrainian, Polish or Russian langauge I cannot assess.

I am posting this message on all slavic notice boards, because now the voting is participated mostly by amateurs far from horilka. Mukadderat 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

This image was recently deleted; it seems that the main concern was that we cannot use it under fair use because 'it is not important to the article'. See deletion debate and reply of the user who deleted it when I asked him for more explanation. I believe this is a very useful image - what do you think?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I wanted to ask for help. An anon ip has introduced a controversy section at Aleksander Kwaśniewski, and has provided sources for their statements. In checking them, I realized that I'm having a hard time determining if the sites are reliable sources...me not being familiar enough with Polish media. I'd appreciate if a few people could give me a quick read on whether these sites are indeed WP:RS quality or are more blogsnews and such. The controversy section should be viewable in the history prior to my revert with the edit summary about "thanks for the sources..." here.

Thanks very much for any help you can give. Syrthiss 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...done. Still, the inserted text needs some cleanup, language neutralizing, copyedit etc. --Beaumont (@) 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user, User:Mibelz has lately been behaving very uncivil, randomly forcing Jewish identities on several Polish figures (including Adam Mickiewicz among others), and calling people who oppose his citation-less and controversial edits "anti-Semitists." He has then recently added pratically every American politician with a Jewish ancestor to the list. The page is now semi-protected, so I have no power without going ahead and making a username, but that would just be WP:POINT on my part and I have too much of an ego to have go through that. Can somebody please get rid of these ridiculous entries? 141.213.211.83 23:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anon, we will take a look at the situation. In the meantime, please consider registering.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an accident and lack of oversight that the articles: Jan Olszewski, Conservative People's Party (Poland) and Catholic-National Movement use Warszawa refering to the Polish capital instead of Warsaw? It seems to me a violation of WP:NC but I don't care enough to go and edit these articles. So I am just bringing up the issue here for someone to take a look. --Irpen 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out, I fixed them. If you find any more, please list them here, or better yet fix them yourself. Balcer 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, any idea what happened to those? I had them on my watchlist and I can't rememeber any VfD (though i could miss them). Szopen 09:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first didn't exist (so, probably a typo in the title) and the second was AfD'd and deleted. Миша13 11:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I saw VfD for both. It's a shame I missed them. It's also a shame that Piotrus, who nominated them, had not contacted me. I would happily provided the references, as both articles were based on literature (though I don't know what happened to later versions). I hadn't provided the references, since at the time when I wrote them, almost no article contained any refs. Szopen 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: Piotrus, please accept my apologisement. I am under a lot of stress recently and sometimes I choose my words unwisely. "Shame that Piotrus etc etc" was one of those words. Szopen 08:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: (Bulk of first one was based on "Studia nad Slowianszczyzna zachodnia" G. Labuda, second on Strzelczyk book on Vandals which title I cannot remember right now. Certainly nothing I wrote in wikipedia is original research. Szopen 13:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that admins can restore deleted pages. Appleseed (Talk) 13:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had also advertised both VfDs (or as they are now known, AfDs) on this noticeboard (it pays to check it more often). But yes, there is always Wikipedia:Request for undeletion. I can also paste the contents of the deleted articles onto your (sub)userpage if you want to present an updated versions before undeletion discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Piotrus. I guess the second option would be better. Because of private problems I will be unable to do anything untill January. Of course I mean the versions before some editor started to put some references to "Daglingers" thingie Szopen 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, you may have noticed that all of today's contributions to the fundraiser will be matched. So if you were planning on supporting the object of our addiction, today is a good day to do it! Happy editing, Appleseed (Talk) 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments how to improve the Armia Krajowa article will be appreciated (see also it's talk for some ongoing discusions), there are currently some cite needed tags and an NPOV one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming debate - proposed name include 'Polish-Russian War (1605-1618)]], ['Polish intervention in Russia', 'Polish-Lithuanian intervention in Time of Trouble', and others. Comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Czy możemy coś z tym zrobić, moi drodzy? To jest skrajna głupota, twierdzić (ba! pisać!), że Skłodowska była polsko-francuska, że się tak wyrażę. Racja, miała z Francją wiele wspólnego, może nawet więcej, niż z Polską. JEDNAK NIEZAPRZECZALNIE była POLKĄ! Nie możemy się zgodzić, żeby Wiki osiągnęła poziom tych francuskich rankingów "Największych", gdzie Skłodowska jest na czele. ;) Tutaj nie chodzi o moją fobię, czy manię wielkości narodu polskiego i jego wybitnej przedstawicielki, ani o frankofobię, czy coś w tym stylu. Pozdrawiam i Merry Christmas :) Kowalmistrz 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note: this public forums prefers English. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the lead seems to be fair, no particular action is needed. --Beaumont (@) 22:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, maybe I should translate my edition? Is anoyne who don't understand that text? I think we must do something about the Infobox in the article about Curie! I understand statement that Curie was Polish-French scientist, but she was only Polish, if we talk about her nationality! Kowalmistrz 23:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Merry Christmas for all Polish-Wikipedians! Smacznego karpia (biedne rybki!) i kuti :] Kowalmistrz 23:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors who frequent this board can't read Polish. Appleseed (Talk) 23:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kowalmistrz. To the extent that nationality means anything, Maria Skłodowska-Curie was a Pole who spent most of her adult life living and working in France. Still, it would be interesting to know whether as an adult she ever defined herself in terms of nationality.

Happy holidays, everybody! logologist|Talk 00:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about becoming a naturalized French? As suggested, I looked into nationality article for the meaning of the word. It seems to confirm my feelings. I could elaborate it, but if we shall continue this discussion, maybe Talk:Marie Curie is a better place? And - at least for me - after the Christmas is a better time :-) Best, --Beaumont (@) 09:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find Polish-French an acceptable compromise, although logologist raises a very valid point - what did she thought of her own nationality? Per Beaumont, talk of that page would be a better place to discuss it - I see no reason we should exclude our French friends (let's not create the impression that we are Polish cabal trying to take over yet another article, there have been too many accusations of that already). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Warsaw Public Library has Bolesław Prus' jubilee portrait, painted by Antoni Kamieński in 1897, in celebration of Prus' 50th birthday and 25 years in journalism. It's a very attractive likeness that reflects his personality, and would be useful for Wikipedia, which doesn't seem to have it. Could someone take a full-length photograph of it, and another of just the head and shoulders, and place them in the Commons? logologist|Talk 11:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if User:Halibutt was not on wikibreak, he would be the best candidate. Barring that, who else is from Warsaw? Hmmm, I think we should contact the pl wiki with a request...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Christmas/Hanukkah time and I won't be available until after January 3rd. If you won't be able to find anyone to do the job, just remind me of it. //Halibutt 15:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles on Polish and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth politicians, generals, entrepreneurs, writers, artists, historians, mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, etc., have no photograph or portrait of their subject. Perhaps some of our photography-capable colleagues could take a digital camera along on visits to museums and libraries and snap targets of opportunity? (The same would hold for historical monuments, cityscapes and the like.)

We owe a debt of gratitude to colleagues who have done this in the past, preventing the situation from being even worse than it is. logologist|Talk 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following instructions...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland redirect created.

Created Category:Poland-related articles by quality

• Created Category:FA-Class Poland-related articles
• Created Category:A-Class Poland-related articles
• Created Category:GA-Class Poland-related articles
• Created Category:B-Class Poland-related articles
• Created Category:Start-Class Poland-related articles
• Created Category:Stub-Class Poland-related articles
• Created Category:Unassessed-Class Poland-related articles

Created Category:Poland-related articles by importance

• Created Category:Top-importance Poland-related articles
• Created Category:High-importance Poland-related articles
• Created Category:Mid-importance Poland-related articles
• Created Category:No-importance Poland-related articles

Template:WikiProject Poland created.

Article tagging: started

You can help by tagging articles with:

 
{{WikiProject Poland
|class  =  choices are: Stub, Start, B, GA, A, FA, NA (not applicable/non-article)
|importance = choices are: Top, High, Mid, Low, NA
}}

Read more about the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Assessment

Notes: if a project is tagged with MILHIST banner, add |Polish-task-force= yes

Brought to you by: -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Let's break an opłatek - sign here if you read this forum and like the holidays :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like it very much. :} - Darwinek 21:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesołych Świąt! :-) Appleseed (Talk) 00:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesołych Świąt! :-) --Beaumont (@) 22:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hate holidays /me and my gf will not be seing each other for 3 days in a row/, but what the heck, all the best to you :) //Halibutt 15:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesołych Świąt! :) Jacek Kendysz 16:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

there is a new page for the translation from polish into english.

This page is yours, please help to improve it.

If you have any question, leave a message on Wikipedia talk:Translation

Jmfayard 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Despite efforts to find sources for several flagged personalities on List of Polish Jews to support they are Polish and Jewish, no references could be found as of yet. Perhaps there are references in the Polish language, unaccessible to the normal reference-hunter. If so, the name can be re-added with said referece. However, it was made very clear and direct that if no references could be found by the coming of the new year the names would be removed per WP:V etc. This has since been done on List of Polish Jews and reverted on the basis of "POV edit" - whatever that means. Can it please be made clear that unless references exist to show that these personalities are Polish and Jewish, they cannot remain on the list with a ^{[citation needed]} flag indefinitely? 141.213.67.46 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Or a slightly delayed 'New Year' thought. In the past, some of us have troubles understanding our Lithuanian collegues; one of the issues was the matter of Polonization/Lithuanization of names (with Laurynas Gucevičius being likely the most (in)famous case). I believe I have discovered a reason for some of the troubles we had; as expected, it is not because of one side bad faith but rather, a cultural misundertanding. It is common in Polish language to refer to people, especially modern, with little 'polonization' of their names; in some other cases, a first name may be polonized, but the surname will be left in orginal, and most of the other changes come from replacing letters not used in Polish language with Polish equivalents (x->ks, v->w). This is, however, not the case in Lithuanian language, which from what I can tell tries to 'naturalize' all foreign sounds. Hence: pl:George W. Bush but lt:Džordžas V. BuÅ¡as, pl:Bill Clinton but lt:Viljamas Klintonas, pl:Lionel Jospin but lt:Lionelis Žospenas, pl:Pittsburgh but lt:Pitsburgas, pl:Connecticut but lt:Konektikutas, lt:Mančesteris, lt:Frankfurtas, lt:Josifas Stalinas, lt:Franklinas Ruzveltas, lt:Fidelis Kastro, lt:Izaokas Niutonas (note also pl:Valdas Adamkus and lt:Valdas Adamkus or pl:Algirdas Brazauskas and lt:Algirdas Brazauskas). Thus please remember that for our Lithuanian collegues seeing a non-Lithuanian name is twice as suprising as for us seeing Copernicus instead of Kopernik or Warsaw instead of Warszawa; please be kind when dealing with those issues, and try to avoid discussions of '-ization' but rather, stick to relevant WP policies (WP:UE being the most useful, and other WP:NC staying close behind).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Piotrus, well put. For anyone not totally understanding the concept, consider Jerzy Waszyngton, in lieu of George Washington. Then again also consider that there are Lithuanian names which are not lithuanizations, like Jogaila, or polonizations of that name like Jagiełło. Or the lithuanization of Władysław Jagiełło II, which would be Vladislovas Jogaila II. Thought I'd help out. Dr. Dan 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny nitpick, Dr.Dan: I think you meant pl:George Washington, known in Lithuania as lt:Džordžas VaÅ¡ingtonas... BTW, can you tell me why Winston Churchill is at lt:Winston Churchill and not lt:Vinstonas Čerčilis? It kind of breaks the pattern...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither tiny nor a nitpick, P.P. However, I will grant you that for some reason (hopefully not related to some shame of the beautiful Polish language), I have noticed that Jerzy Waszington is being slowly relegated to the trash bin. Do check out the history of the Polish article and other aspects of Polish WP and you'll see this unfortunate evolution concerning Washington and Chicago, etc. I assume your informing our English speaking readers of the Lithuanian linguistic formulation of non-Lithuanian names has some point other than to waste their time. If that's the case, let's forget Jerzy Waszington for George Washington, for now, and Jerzy Matulewicz for Jurgis Matulaitis, and even Wit Stwosz for Veit Stoss. There's a "plethora" of other examples of Polonizations of non-Polish names that we could debate. And maybe even the other way around, I noticed your involved in the current Dzierzon matter. As for Churchill, I could care less what the Lithuanians call him on their WP entry. Much more concerned with how you call Elzbieta Rakuszanka on English WP. Cześć! Dr. Dan 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One day, Dr. Dan, you will master the skill of understanding what others wrote and writing yourself so others can understand you. May I suggest you come back to us at that time?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I upset you. Sorry that my linguistic skills are not up to your satifaction. And most of all, sorry that my help concerning your "lecture" on the Lithuanian language was also not appreciated. Dr. Dan 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there is a new argument about 'war crimes of Armia Krajowa' and despite the recent subarticle created the Lithuanian subsection is growing again. It's quite interesting, and thanks to some similar past discussions we have managed to make this article a GA-level one, but more voices are always welcome, as we seem to be unable to reach consensus on some issues.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, I just changed the Template:Infobox City Poland

• 1) I adapted the infobox to the German infobox for Polish cities (Infobox (Polen))
• 2) I am unfortunately not able making a same design (with titles) can someone please do it?
• 3) Some parts are still missing, like No. of villages, etc. Please find below the German code.
• 4) if you like you can compare the design of the Info Boxes please go to the English and German article of "Opatowek"

Best regards Christoph

{{Infobox (Polen)
|Stadt=Opatowek / Spatenfelde
|Wappen=[[Bild:Coat_Of_Arms_Opatowek.jpg|109px|Wappen von Dobrzyca]]
|Karte=[[Bild:Landkarte_Kalisch.png|149px]]
|Woiwodschaft=Großpolen
|ISO 3166-2=PL-WP
|Powiat=Kaliski
|Powiat_link=Kaliski
|KreisfreieStadt=
|Fläche=12,2
|type=city
|Koordinate_Breite=N
|Koordinate_Breitengrad=51
|Koordinate_Breitenminute=44
|Koordinate_Breitensekunde=20
|Koordinate_Länge=O
|Koordinate_Längengrad=18
|Koordinate_Längenminute=14
|Koordinate_Längensekunde=14
|Höhe=
|Einwohner=3.800
|EinwohnerDatum=31. Dez. 2005
|Postleitzahl=62-860
|Telefonvorwahl=62
|KFZ-Kennzeichen=PKA
|Wirtschaftszweige=Textilwirtschaft
|Straßen=[[Autostrada A2 (Polen)|A2 / E30]], N12
|Schienen=
|Flughafen=[[Flughafen Lodz|Flughafen Lodz]]
|Gemeinde=Landgemeinde
|Gemeindegliederung=27 Ortsteile
|GemeindeFläche=104,2
|GemeindeEinwohner=10.000
|GemeindeEinwohnerDatum=31. Dez. 2005
|Bürgermeister=Sebastian Wardęcki
|BürgermeisterDatum=2006
|AnschriftStraße=pl. Wolności 14
|AnschriftOrt=62-860 Opatówek<br>e-mail: gmina@opatowek.pl<br>Telephon: +48 62 7618080
|Webpräsenz=www.opatowek.pl
}}

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fujicolor (talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC). [reply]

If you're working on articles about Polish art or artists, take a look at this site. It has a lot of high quality images to make your articles pretty. Appleseed (Talk) 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or some other possibilites, RM at Talk:Kraków_grosh#Requested_move_to_Krak.C3.B3w_grosz_or_Cracow_grosz. With the background argument that Kraków should be moved to Cracow (or as some prefer, Krakau :>).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi all, I choose Polish as an example language in reflexive verb article, but it needs some proofreading of Polish examples (online dictionaries don't help much for present-tense suffixes :-D). Thanks in advance. Duja► 21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Jacek Kendysz 00:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henryk Górecki could use an audio sample and/or IPA pronunciation. Olessi 22:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

We should write something about the misconception and soviet era propaganda that the Polish-Soviet War was a part of that conflict. And something about the irony of the situation that Piłsudski actually wanted the Communists to win. Mieciu K 16:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Since Polish-Soviet War is a pretty well referenced FA, perhaps there is material in the article that can be simply copied? Btw, did you know there indeed was a Polish intervention in the RCW? See 4th Rifle Division (Poland) and 5th Rifle Division (Poland). Sure, it was limited, and hardly a government initative, but how history meanders is really interesting...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, and strange, where they simply trying to save their lives or were they fighting for a greater cause? That would explain the 12,000 Poles figure I found in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War article. Mieciu K 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read their cause was Poland; in the east, they only wanted to survive (had to follow the chain of command, mostly Entente forces from the 'allied intervention'... or Whites), later when on grounds they considered Polish they fought for themselves, I think.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at the following articles:

• International Order of Saint Stanislaus
• Order of Saint Stanislaus
• Order of Saint Stanislaus (Oekrainian chapter of the International Order of Saint Stanislaus)
• The order of Saint Stanislaus. As issued by the head of the Imperial House of Romanov
• The order of Saint Stanislaus.(re)established in Polen in 1990
• The order of Saint Stanislaus.(re)established in the Republic of Poland in 1990

I'm not sure if they need to be merged or renamed. All I know is that looking at them makes my head hurt. Appleseed (Talk) 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! That's a rare mess :) Merge all and salt the earth after the last four redirects (delete).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this from new articles annoucements. Please help those two editors find a common ground.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent has unilaterally changed the article's title from "St. Florian's Gate" to the incorrect "Florian Gate," after first vandalizing the article's discussion page, removing the 3 votes against the move, vs. his sole one vote. Please see my note, "Poeticbent's vandalism," on the discussion page of "Florian Gate." logologist|Talk 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I am at loss about the notability of this article about a polish play. A notability tag was removed without comment. Is Maciej Kowalewski notable? Could someone look at it? Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded it, let's see what happens.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since a user is removing prod without any responce, I give you the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bomb (play).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boguslawa Cimoszko.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the redirect Third Livonian War is pointing at Polish-Swedish wars. What should it redirect to? Appleseed (Talk) 04:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Swedish War (1600–1629). Which is another disambig, after the article I wrote was split of into subarticles some time ago, a decision I am not that happy about but...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev920 keep adding Jarosław Kaczyński article to the Category:LGBT people from Poland. Jogers (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction is LOL. Now, more seriously, the refs that are used to back up this rather amusing claim are somewhat dubious: gaycitynews.com, www.pinknews.co.uk and www.thegully.com - all three seem like a minor new sites with an evident POV. Per WP:BLP I'd suggest that unless such claims can be verified by more reliable sources, they are discarded based on not being reliable (failing to satisfy WP:RS). In any case, please comment in the discussion at article's talk.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Among requested articles about Poland is "Przemsyl" (no details given). I was going to remove it as a typo for Przemyśl but the word has disturbingly high number of ghits on .pl. Could someone take a look and remove it if is really just a typo? Pavel Vozenilek 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it also could refer to:

• Przemysł I - Duke of Greater Poland
• Przemysł II - king of Poland, son of Przemysł I
• Przemysł Inowrocławski - Duke of Inowrocław

"Przemysl" it self is a "typo"/version without diacritics, but what was on authors mind... who knows Radomil talk 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pl wiki has no article on 'Przemsyl' and I'd agree with Radomil that it's a poor typo.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow neighbours. :) Would you be interested in supporting/participating in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic? I think it is much needed as there is no platform on EN Wiki concentrating on Czech articles. You can vote or comment here: [2]. Have a nice day. :) - Darwinek 10:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the creation of Czech noticeboard some time ago. I strongly support users from that country (and possibly from Slovakia as well) working together. Unfortunatly my knowledge of that region is too limited to be able to offer any significant content help.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (third nomination). And slightly less interesting: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boguslawa Cimoszko.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

See Portal_talk:Poland/New_article_announcements#User:AlexNewArtBot_-_New_Article_Bot. Rules: User:AlexNewArtBot/Poland. First run results: User:AlexNewArtBot/PolandLog. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello. Can someone with better English than mine please help and translate lyrics in Płyniesz Olzo po dolinie? It will be very much appreciated. I can buy you a Czech beer. :) - Darwinek 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, where is my Czech beer? greetings Tymek 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The unreferenced article Father of the Nation lists Piłsudski for Poland. Is this accurate? Appleseed (Talk) 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, opinions on Pilsudski differ, but if there is a personality who can be regarded as Father of the modern Polish Nation, I do not see anybody else but him. I think most of my fellow countrymen will agree Tymek 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but for balance with regards to the length of Polish history, I have added Mieszko I who was the founder of the historical Polish state. Deuar 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually a dispute about this but the person adding the category to Piłsudski article declined to take part in the discussion. I am neutral on this issue - we need references.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well mayby Piłsudski is considered to be father of Polish nation in former Kongresówka or Galicja, bu in ex-Prussian Partition he is surely not. Here he wasn't (and still isn't) popular person. Radomil talk 18:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays we call it Greater Poland. :-) Why isn't he liked there? Appleseed (Talk) 19:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only in Grater Poland, also in Eastern Pommerania and Silesia. Here as fathers of independence are known persons like Dmowski (for his work during wwI, and vision of national state), Haller, Paderwski, Korfanty, Taczak, Dowbór-Muśnicki and so on. Piłsudski is seen as person that doesn't care of Kresy Zachodnie. In our POV he was only interested in conquering "wild fields" of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine instead fighting for Silesia or Gdańsk. He is also disliked for his May Coup d'Etat. In Western Poland much more preferable was democracy, and apolitical army - model of state promoted by Haller and Dowbór-Muśnicki. Radomil talk 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. While personally I tend to have "Galician-like views" on him, I remeber some of these controversies. Generally, Endecja, one of major political forces then, didn't like him very much, so to speak. I do not think the label "Father of the nation" applies. The definition of the latter implies some kind of national consensus around the man in question (and it was not really the case, as the opposition was quite strong). Maybe Casimir the Great is a better candidate?--Beaumont (@) 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other candidates could be: Bolesław Chrobry, Kazimierz Odnowiciel, Przemysł II (I know, not well know, probably this eliminates him from list), Władysław Łokietek and Tadeusz Kościuszko Radomil talk 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to emphasize - I wrote that Pilsudski may be considered the father of MODERN Polish Nation. As far as times before II Polish Republic, there are several important personalities worthy mentioning Tymek 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

II RP had many fathers, Piłsudski IMHO is too controversial to be the one in this list. Beter to leave him... On the other hand Kościuszko could be good candidate for father of Modern Polish nation, he started, during insurection, to build nation of all citizens, not only nobles. Radomil talk 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, do we have to stick to one person? The Germans have a whole bunch of them as Fathers of the Nation. Why don't we chose say 5 of them? Tymek 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not consider to this... Look at Iran, many controversial notable figures in very long hitory, like Khomeini, but only Cyrus as father of nation. Radomil talk 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if we are supposed to choose only one, I will cast my vote on Mieszko I Tymek 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too Radomil talk 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too --Beaumont (@) 10:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mieszko has a very distinct advantage − uncontroversial ;-) Deuar 12:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for him too, but we need references. Appleseed (Talk) 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any paintings representing the Congress of Gniezno? I googled for images in English and Polish (zjazd gnieznienski) but found nothing. Appleseed (Talk) 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing comes to mind, nor were my search useful. A trip to Gniezno with a camera may be in order, and a local guide would be invaluable. I'd bet there are some semi-forgotten paintings, sculptures and similar objects, for example at Gniezno Cathedral.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. I'm surprised at the dearth of artwork related to this event, especially since the article declares it "one of the more important events in Polish history". Appleseed (Talk) 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... would anyone like to volunteer to take some photos in Gniezno? Appleseed (Talk) 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone find a citation for this (mine) claim? It would be good if someone would write a short article about the Polish territorial acquisition (1938) to get rid of the misconception that the aquisition of the dispiuted teritories was done "together" with the III Reich. Mieciu K 11:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia; unfortunatly it's unreferenced.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article needs to be renamed. How about Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts? Appleseed (Talk) 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And while we're on the subject of renaming, perhaps someone can think of a better title for The first game: December 18, 1921. Hungary - Poland 1-0. Appleseed (Talk) 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to yourself, Apple? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

qp10qp said that replying to oneself is the first sign of madness. Should I be concerned? :-) I only wish I could reply in the affirmative to my Congress of Gniezno question. Appleseed (Talk) 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to rename The first game: December 18, 1921. Hungary - Poland 1-0, you can do it, but I do not know what better title you can come up with. Tymek 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Poland v Hungary (1921)? Appleseed (Talk) 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it would suggest that it was one of many friendlies. We have to emphasize this was the very first international of Poland. Otherwise there will always be someone wanting to delete it, just like Poland v Brazil (1938) Check out discussion on this page, I had a lot of problems with some users Tymek 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of the game should be emphasized in the body of the article, not the title. Appleseed (Talk) 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a person from Zaolzie, I can say following. Argument of Polish-German cooperation in 1938 is bulshit. This argument was spread by Czech propaganda before the war and during the Communist era until 1989. Often "nicely" said as "fascist Beck's Poland" etc. Fact is that Poland didn't give a fock about Germany, they just took their chance - Munich Agreement. In Polish view Zaolzie should have been Polish already in 1920. - Darwinek 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone who reads this board knows this. However, it's important to be on the lookout for articles that spread such old propaganda and misinformation. Not too long ago we saw WWII myths presented as fact (see the history of the "Tuchola Forest myth" redirect). Appleseed (Talk) 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Watts in his book "Bitter Glory" accurately described all ins and outs of Polish-Czech conflict for Zaolzie in 1920s and 1930s. Should I put down some quotes from this book? Tymek 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much apreciate that. Mieciu K 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I have some time, I'll do it Tymek 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked the "Bitter Glory" book. He gives a very interesting insight about ways in which the Czechs gained control over Zaolzie and their tricks (they acted in a very dirty way). But before I add it - a question about copyrights? Anybody would answer? I do not want to waste my time, cause there's a lot of stuff on it. Tymek 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright? The Polish Copyright Law Act of February 4, 1994 should answer some specific questions, in general if you are copying text as a means of scientific studies and as long as you reference it properly, keep the quotes at reasonable lenght nobody should complain. Mieciu K 15:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Quotes are always OK. Publishing long parts (~chapter+) is usually not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Jogaila for newest RM and User:Angusmclellan/Jogaila mediation for related mediation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the mediation request is now at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there is also the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jogaila for a different take.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could use a naming convention to unify the articles about Polonias who currently use two naming conventions: Polish-somethings and Polish minority in...

• Polish American (note singular)
• Polish Australian (note singular)
• Polish Brazilian (note singular)
• Polish Canadians (note plural)
• Polish Germans (note plural)

vs

• Polish minority in the Czech Republic
• Polish minority in Lithuania
• Polish minority in Romania
• Polish minority in the Soviet Union
• Polish minority in United Kingdom (or should it be Polish minority in the United Kingdom?)

I'd suggest renaming all articles from the first group to 'Polish minority in...' variant, or consider renaming all of them to Polish Wikipedia style 'Polonia in...'. Also, personally I think that the term Polish-something - like Polish American - can and is also used to people of American descent living in Poland, or at least is close enough to be confusing. PS. There are some interesting articles missing about Polish minorities numbering 100 000+ (according to pl:Polonia: Polish minority in Argentina (450 000), Polish minority in France (1 050 000), Polish minority in Italy (100 000), Polish minority in Russia (300 000), Polish minority in Ukraine (900 000), Polish minority in Belarus (900 000), Polish minority in Kazakhstan (100 000)...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as for the RC, the name I used here is used officially by both sides. Also, if you would call the Pole from the RC "Polish-Czech" (polski Czech) you would be probably punched in the face by him :). I support the idea to rename it to "Polish minority in ...". - Darwinek 18:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our German "friend" is back. Check out his latest wise move: [3] . - Darwinek 10:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

There is currently a project designed to change ugly and monumental infobox for Polish cities. See talk page here. Your ideas are welcomed. - Darwinek 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to direct the attention of this notice board to the Hussar article. As I have mentioned several times in its talk page, the article is in a state of disarray, due to the fact that it describes two vastly different formations, with different equipment and tactics - which have the misfortune of sharing the same name in English. I propose to split the article, perhaps with cross references. However, I have both little experience in Wikipedia and little knowledge (not to mention little time) to conduct this correctly. Anybody up for this?

PS. Thanks for the notice, Appleseed :). Miki 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree tbat this page needs attention, and the cavalry and modern hussars should be split. Also, I believe we should work on the Polish Hussars which I believe presents a notable enough distinct formation to deserve its own article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with this article? --Umedard ^Talk 21:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, is pl:Dom Włoski w Krakowie the same as Montelupich prison?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently a featured article candidate (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/T-26), could someone write a (sourced) paragraph evaluating the use of these tanks during the Polish defensive war (1939), the author somehow belives that soviet campaign was a failure(?) and T-26 tanks were in part somehow responsible for that. Mieciu K 17:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I raised those issues in the FAC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved town Koziegłowy to Koziegłowy (Silesian Voivodeship). It is only town with that name, but it has only 2,493 inhabitants. Village with that name, in Greater Poland (the biggest village in Poland) has 10,755 inhabitants, so its ca. 4 times biger. Radomil talk 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good move, I had no idea about the relative significance of these places. Balcer 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on Polish Voivodeships in the interwar period,

Should anybody have some more info about them, share it

Tymek 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Category:Polish_historical_voivodeships_(1921–1939).

To keep things manageable, how about we create Łódź Voivodeship (1921-1939) and Lublin Voivodeship (1921-1939), so that information about historic voivodeships is kept separate from information about present day Łódź Voivodeship and Lublin Voivodeship ? Balcer 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I have already put down some info on Lodz Voivodeship 1921-1939

Anyway, as soon as I started, user LUCPOL deleted my works on Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship, removing some important info and adding some curious facts e.g. claiming that Silesian Language was one of official languages back then (never heard of it). Tymek 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely. See: [4] and diff. LUCPOL 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb question: why 1921-1939 and not 1918-1939?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Per pl-wiki, the first five (among them Lódź and Lublin) were created in 1919, with others added in the following years. Maybe a better way to go then would be to have Łódź Voivodeship (historical) and Lublin Voivodeship (historical), which would address all the past voivodeships with that name? Balcer 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Poland was not fully completed until 1921, after adding Wilno and Upper Silesia. I guess this is why it is 1921-1939 (I did not come up with this span of time). Anyway, we should cooperate with each other, otherwise there will be a conflict. I mean LUCPOL and his edits, he destroyed all my work. Seeing this, I start to think it does not make sense to do anything Tymek 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Read above. LUCPOL 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, your work is not destroyed, it is still sitting in the history of article and can be restored. What is the issue with User:LUCPOL, anyway? Balcer 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think LUCPOL's contributions deserve some scrutiny. Despite my objections, he created many categories related to the dubiously named "Metropolis Katowice" (I can't find them now; hopefully they were deleted). He also seems to think Silesia is its own country or some sort of subunit of the EU (see this). I tried to discuss these issues with him but was unsuccessful. Appleseed (Talk) 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek trochę przesadził. Za bardzo nerwowo i panicznie się tym zajął. Tu jest toczona dyskusja pomiędzy mną i Tymkiem na temat autonomicznego województwa śląskiego (oraz jego i moich zmian): [5]. Najważniejsze by nie przesadzać w słowach. Appleseed - ty również trochę przesadziłeś tą opinią i tym linkiem. Przeczytaj sobie mój opis zmian w tym linku, on wyjaśnia wszystko. LUCPOL 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As we all know, Silesia is not well-defined, and it is divided among several countries. As I wrote on your talk page, "I think the only solution is to avoid creating subcategories for regions. It doesn't make sense to create categories such as 'Universities and colleges in Silesia' that will include schools from three countries. We would have the same problem if someone created a category such as 'Universities and colleges in Galicia'." And yet you created all these categories. Appleseed (Talk) 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will remove this category. LUCPOL 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't just referring to Category:Education in Silesia, but to every subcategory of Category:Silesia that implicitly requires Silesia to be a well-defined region, which it is not. The only categories I can think of that should remain there are Silesian culture, Dukes of Silesia, and the two voivodeships. Appleseed (Talk) 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be definitely nominated at WP:CFD. - Darwinek 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about being panicky, nervous or exaggerating. LUCPOL made changes which deleted important and true facts, this should never happen:

• population of counties was removed - why?

• several counties were removed - why?

• population of cities was changed, without providing source

• Swietochlowice was added to cities even though it was not a city then and LUCPOL knows it

• Siemianowice was a city not an urban commune

• Zaolzie cities were removed, plus Frysztat county - wouldn't it be better to leave them adding note "since October 1938"?

• Silesian as an official language - how did you come up with this?

Anyway, LUCPOL is from Silesia, I will leave it to him. Please work it out, otherwise we will provide wrong info Greetings to all Tymek 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widzę Tymek, że jednak zamierzasz tu prowadzić dyskusję, więc proszę - czytaj chociaż odpowiedzi bo powtarzasz ciągle te same sprawy:

"Dlaczego zmieniles zawartosc artykulu o Autonomicznym Wojewodztwie Slaskim w latach miedzywojennych?"

Wikipedia opiera się na tym, że można stale poprawiać i zmieniać hasła. Artykuł starałem się jak najbardziej upodobnić do artykułu w polskiej wersji językowej.

"Zachowales sie nieladnie, tak sie nie robi, usunales sporo wiadomosci ktore sa istotne i jak najbardziej prawdziwe"

Początek zdania zostawiam bez komentarza. Jeśli chodzi o drugą część tego zdania: nie usunąłem sporo wiadomości. Prawie nic nie usunąłem. Głównie dodałem infobox i zrobiłem zmiany redakcyjne (zamieniając nieczytelne dane na tabele z polskiej wikipedii). Przypatrz się dokładnie moim zmianom.

"usunales tez powiat frysztacki ktory nalezal do tego wojewodztwa w okresie jesien 1938-wrzesien 1939"

Ja w artykule przedstawiłem dane z 1929, wtedy nie było tego powiatu w województwie. Po za tym, z twojej wersji wynika, że Chorzów (pop. 128 900) był większym miastem od Katowic (pop. 126 200) co nie było prawdą. LUCPOL 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wedlug spisu powszechnego Polski z 1931 roku Chorzow byl wiekszy od Katowic"

Czy aby na pewno? PS. Zobacz też tu.

"Powiat frysztacki nalezal do tego wojewodztwa od roku 1938, ale nie rozumiem dlaczego calkowicie go usunales, skoro istnial (wystarczylo napisac, ze istnial w latach 38-39)"

Tu się z tobą zgadzam. Ale o tym później.

"A co z tym jezykiem slaskim? Gdzie to znalazles?"

Dane przeniosłem z pl.wikipedii. Wiem, że ten język był nieoficjalny, lecz infobox ma w kodzie wpisane "Official" (czego nie ma na pl.wikipedii) i stąd te komplikacje. Nie mniej jednak poprawiłem - wpisałem adnotacje ¹Non official. PS. Czeski również wtedy nie był oficjalnie uznawanym językiem w województwie.

Mam do Ciebie propozycję, utwórz proszę tabelę z miastami i powiatami tak jak jest w artykule lecz z twoimi danymi. Dane są znacznie bardziej czytelne dzięki tabeli. Tabelę wprowadź w brudnopisie lub w mojej dyskusji lub po prostu w dyskusji artykułu. Jeśli będzie wszystko OK to podmieni się tabele w artykule na twoje dane. Nie mam nic przeciwko. LUCPOL 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be said that Czech language ceased to be official in Zaozie area after 1938 annexation of Zaolzie by Poland. It was forbidden to use it officially. - Darwinek 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUCPOL I said I would leave it to you, so please... Just remember - use some brains while editing Tymek 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek. Wpisz swoje dane w tabelki "miasta" i "powiaty" tak jak jest w artykule. Dla mnie wszystko jedno czy to będą dane z pl.wikipedii czy twoje, byle by były to dane uporządkowane w tabelach. LUCPOL 22:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wszystkie dane sa w tym materiale ktory usunales. Nie widze sensu szukac w Roczniku Statystycznym i wklepywac to od nowaTymek 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nie zrozumiałeś mnie. Chodzi o to, aby te twoje dane [6] wpisać w tabele: "miasta" oraz drugą tabelę "powiaty". LUCPOL 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUcpol prosze Cie... w jaki sposob Austria dostala po 3. Powstaniu Slaskim czesc Gornego Slaska? Skad bierzesz takie rewelacje? Tymek 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racja, mój błąd. Mój angielski nie jest biegły, myślałem że chodzi o to, że tereny Górnego Śląska były cały czas podzielone pomiędzy kraje (i dlatego dopisałem Austrię), teraz rozumiem że w tekście chodzi tylko o autonomiczne województwo śląskie. Mój błąd już poprawiłem. LUCPOL 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zrobiłem tabele według twoich danych. Tabele (moje i twoje) oraz dyskusja ich dotycząca jest tutaj. LUCPOL 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wprowadziłem dane Tymka do tabel i zapisałem w artykule. Choć istnieje mały bałagan dotyczący dat (1931, 1939) to jednak ustępuję Tymkowi. Tu jest nowa wersja artykułu: [7]. Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL 10:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUCPOL to nie sa moje dane, to sa oficjalne dane z Rocznika Statystycznego za rok 1939. Nie chodzi o to zeby mi ustapic tylko aby podawac informacje mozliwie 100% prawdziwe. Akurat w tym wypadku zrodla z ktorego cytuje nie mozna podwazyc. Balagan bierze sie stad ze drugi i jednoczesnie ostatni spis ludnosci Polski ogloszony zostal bodaj 9 grudnia 1931 r. Po tym czasie az do wojny zadnego spisu nie zrobiono, tak wiec dane demograficzne oparte sa na nim. Dane dotyczace obszaru powiatow i miast podane sa za rok 1939 poniewaz jak wiadomo po aneksji Zaolzia powierzchnia tego wojewodztwa zwiekszyla sie o powiat frysztacki plus znacznie zwiekszono cieszynski Tymek 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Balcer has suggested, I am going to seperate some voivodeships, to emphasize the span of time (interwar period only). I started off here Pomeranian_voivodeship_(1919-1939). Please check it out and let me know what you think of it. Also, add any stuff which I have not included Tymek 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone to help me out and create a map of Polesie Voivodeship. Tymek 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article (about a painter) is currently on VfD. Could someone take a look? TIA Pavel Vozenilek 11:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalena Trzebiatowska - one more painter on AfD.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacek Yerka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katarzyna Kozyra. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone assist me with the name of the powiat directly East of the Warszawski Zachodni powiat? Thanks! Rarelibra 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the city of Warsaw. See Masovian Voivodeship. Olessi 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was looking HERE and it wasn't too helpful. Rarelibra 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, on Commons (here) are good location maps of cities in Poland. It will be great to change current maps in enWiki to these. Regards. Yarl.pl talk 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the rather interesting commons:Atlas of Poland. Also, it would be a good idea to move all maps from Category:Maps of Poland to commons.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong pressure to describe the Expulsion of the Germans as a crime. At the sama time some poeple promote the idea of the Repatriation of Poles from Wilno region as an act of historical justice. I believe that this Wikipedia should be integral, ie. either all forced expulsions after WWII are wrong or all forced expulsions are good. Now I'm bashed both by Germany fans and Lithuania fans. Xx236 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example: removed from this board by the original poster

Let everyone read the text, why to be ashamed? Xx236 15:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text is worth reading http://www.istorija.lt/lim/stravinskiene2004en2.html as an example of Lithuanian academic quality. The problem is, that many Germans also opted for repatriation, many of them weren't allowed to emigrate. It wasn't always simple to be expelled. Xx236 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repatriation as we all know means "returning to one's homeland". I cannot comprehend why some people up to this day call expulsions of Poles from Lwow or Wilno "repatriation". Homes of these unfortunate beings had for hundreds of years been in Eastern Borderlands, so theoretically speaking, if some of them now return from Wroclaw to their hometown of Lwow - now this is repatriation Tymek 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Poles were forced to leave Kresy (includiing Wilno), there are plenty of refs for that. I agree with Xx that both of these events should presented as without trying to 'whitewash' them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster accuses me of spreading lies. One should prove first, that the expulsion was a repatriation, which is rather impossible. Is there a serious Lithuanian here, to explain to the original poster that he could be more polite? The shouting doesn't make him more right. Xx236 13:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told that you were lying about: At the sama time some poeple promote the idea of the Repatriation of Poles from Wilno region as an act of historical justice. Could you support this great accusation of yours with any diffs, or would you be willing to apologize?

As about repatriation you might read the article, link to which I did provide. If you do not like what is written there, please provide any academic sources disputing this event or proving that repatriation/evacuation/moving of those people was done by force. And please be specific - we are talking about Lithuanian SSR - not the whole Kresy, not Ukraine and not Belarus. Academic sources please, not newspapers or some website by patriotic authors.--Lokyz 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming that the Poles were repatriated. I haven't started the discussion and I haven't accused you of spreading lies, rather of lack of knowledge and radical nationalism. A reader can check the Vilnius University talk page. Xx236 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

If we were to believe some users, yes. Please see Talk:Ypatingasis bÅ«rys#Poles and Russians in YB?, and if you can read Lithuanian, please help verify and translate the source used to back up this preposterous claim.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things not always were as you would like to see them. And your tendency to use fancy words won't help here. Here is exact line, and translation [8]. Have good day.--Lokyz 15:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one Lithuanian source claims that YB numbered a few Poles and Russians among their ranks might deserve a mention in YB article, but certainly gives no ground for a claim that Ponary massacre was carried by the Poles (and Russians).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know who this medieval person is? I have a WP:RS I've been using from 1903 for anti-Judaism which mentions that "in Poland Pope Gregory XI stopped the crusade of Jan of Ryczywol." But I can't find a mention of this person anywhere else in English. Are there perhaps alternate spellings I'm missing? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure that person is notable? The only Jan Ryczywół I could find is a person linked to the legend of the stolen chastices from Poznań.Mieciu K 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly not, the author may have been grasping at straws. Pope Gregory XI had a fairly short reign to begin with. I'll probably end up removing it as spurious. Just wanted to make sure this Jan wasn't someone infamous in the Polish realm. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not even far right Polish websites mention Jan of Ryczywół/Jan Ryczywół/Jan z Ryczywołu or his crusade. Can you provide us with a citation so we can set this person in some kind of context? Mieciu K 17:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Um, a 1903 source is not the one I'd think of as reliable... I cannot find any reference for that, neither, and besides, in 1903 there was technically no Poland... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would have been the 1300s, when the Kingdom of Poland existed. It's just odd as the source has been otherwise perfectly reliable, but any fuller history here seems to have fallen thru the cracks. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I was under the impression we were talking about a person from 1903, too. I will look into that, but I think the pl link Mieciu found is most useful. Note it is a legend... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK; I ran the link thru a babblefish. Generally, sources seem to agree on an incident regarding host desecration in 1399 in Poznan, but that's far to late to involve the Pope my source mentions, who died in 1378 (and needless to say, googling "Pope" and "Poland" isn't helpful, no matter what other search terms I append). Thanks for your help; obviously my source got his facts wrong here. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Poland (1945–1989) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that it is an interesting page to watchlist.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

See Talk:Zebrzydowski's Rokosz - RM for movement to Zebrzydowski Rebellion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every town in Poland now has an article (well, almost every town, as I am guessing a few are still missing from that list for one reason or another). Most of these articles are still stubs. Please help with improving them, by expanding those about towns in your area, for starters. Balcer 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chciałbym zaprosić wszystkich do nowootwartego: Wikipedia:WikiProject Silesia. Mam nadzieję że ktoś wpisze się na listę użytkowników i coś czasem poedytuje związanego ze Śląskiem :) LUCPOL 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

After more recent additions (such as Scarlett Johansson, Richard Feynman, and Adrian Brody), it has come to my attention that List of Polish Jews has gotten completely out of hand. I had tried to add warning notices and they have been removed. Can somebody please open up a vote for inclusion type thing like was established [[9]] on List of Poles and participate in it? LeszekB 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Be bold. Since the article is already semi-protected I propose the deleation of all unsourced "polish-jews", and asking some administrators to take care of this list so that unsourced "jews" are not added again. Unfortunatly this list is a honeypot for all people with a WP:POINT to make. Mieciu K 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not anonymous users who keep adding these names with poor excuses. It is registered users. I don't think there's any way to break through. A small group of them have a virtual monopoly on the list, and it's growing with constantly more ridiculous additions with either poor sources, no sources, or sources that just say some ancestor of the person was from Poland and Jewish. LeszekB 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about lists, list of Poles is a giant mess, too. I once suggested it should be burned, salted and replaced with User:Piotrus/List of Poles, and we should have strict criteria what other publications (other than Polski Słownik Biograficzny) guarantee inclusion in that list (personally I find such list useless, categories do a better job anyway).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, burn it down. - Darwinek 20:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Even if it's accurate, a list like that is too big to be useful. Appleseed (Talk) 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, AfD consensus? I can see a point in smaller lists, or lists with clear criteria (list of Poles according to PSB like mine) but this... brrr. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have already reached the consensus, so screw AFD. - Darwinek 20:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I am afraid we need 1) more time - 3 people in few hours is not a consensus yet and 2) AFD is the procedure, unless you can think of a good reason to speedy this... Plus if we can AFD this maybe we can afd similar monstrosities related to other nationalities (or ethnic groups, etc.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too. IMHO we should make something similar to Lists of Jews. Jacek Kendysz 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or just a category would do? I'm all for that. But how can we justify having a massively messy List of Polish Jews and no List of Poles? LeszekB 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish Jews is less messy than List of Poles :) For that list my vote is 'delete all non-referenced entries, live referenced ones'. Although honestly it is a good candidate for catetorization and deletion, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple though. Some of them are sourced, but sourced with a link saying someone's grandmother was a Jew from Poland and that somehow legitimatizes the addition because a small note on the list is interpreted as meaning "This list can have everyone with some Polish-Jewish heritage." At least List of Poles consists of people actually BORN in Poland and knowing the Polish language (save maybe some overlooked additions). Look at the politicians section of List of Polish Jews. LeszekB 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as List of Poles is concerned, there should be some criteria upon which this list should be based. I wrote in comments to this article that adding such world-renowned personalities as Natalia Kukulska simpy does not make any sense (unless we want to end up with a list consisting of, say, 5,000 names). If Natalia (or Kasia Kowalska) is there, how about adding all football players of Arka Gdynia, all musicians of Papa Dance and all politicians of Platforma Obywatelska. After all, they are all Poles Tymek 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As far as I am concerned the only reasonable solution is to rely on some external criteria 'notable because noted in a publication', and we have a rather perfect solution for that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can get this established pretty easily by holding an RFC or something, and getting a consensus on it. From the looks of it, everyone here would probably support the use of the Polski Słownik Biograficzny as the only standard by which to define someone as a Pole. Open up a RFC and lets have a vote. Only thing is, it needs to be made very clear that if someone is not in the Polski Słownik Biograficzny they cannot be added to any list that includes Poles or "Polish" in the title --- including List of Poles, List of Polish writers, List of Polish Jews et c. LeszekB 12:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the devil's advocate, there are few issues to consider. First: PSB is not complete (up to around Sz) and it is not supposed to be complete for about 20 years (sic!). I'd think we can solve this by agreeing to include entries from recognized encyclopedias (we should have a list) that mentioned somebody along with his (Polish, obviously) nationality. Second, we need to discuss whether this criteria should apply to other Lists of Polish whatevers and Category:Polish people with its subcats (I'd tentativly say yes).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree, generally, lists like these make a problem. On a related note, there were some Polish names on List of Ukrainians that did not really belong there (BTW, a user was blocked for pushing that). Now we had another one who apparently likes lists and e.g. added Adam Rotfeld (born 1938 in Lviv, then Lwow). I found it offending the common sense (see his bio or the related talk page). I spent several kB to argue for more accuracy and I have enough (for the moment Rotfeld is not there; I withdraw anyway). Probably we need there more eyes, since it is possible that there are a few more inaccurate entries. --Beaumont (@) 10:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by LeszekB

I think there's too much talk and way less do. The following 9 points of criteria were taken from an old vote on inclusion for List of Poles. Now, we can vote to apply certain ones for all lists and categories of Poles associated with the country of Poland (meaning anything from Category:Polish logicians to List of Polish painters to List of Polish Jews, but not Polish-American or Polish-Brazilians because they are associated with another country). If anyone wants to add another criteria or adjust one, do so. Vote Support or Oppose for each. This vote can be used as evidence of consensus. LeszekB 06:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to imply that they should all be notable and wikipedia article worthy. LeszekB 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Notable people born in Poland or immigrants to Poland’s territory including periods when Polish territory was occupied by other countries – Partitions and wars.

• Object - no claim of notability. Also, define Poland's territory - present, or past? Case (or can of worms...): GDL.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object LeszekB 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Notable people born in current Polish territory in times when the place was not in Poland in relevant period. E.g. Wrocław or Szczecin in times of Partitions.

• Object - no claim of notability. Plus above can of worms.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Polish territory was massive at one point in time and encompassed people of all ethnicities. LeszekB 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Notable people born to Polish emigrants – at least one parent of Polish ethnicity, but without any evidence that they spoke Polish etc.

• Object - no claim of notability and can'o'wormish.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - Polish-whatever but not Polish LeszekB 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Notable people born to Polish emigrants – at least one grand parent of Polish ethnicity, without evidence as above.

• Object - no claim of notability and can'o'wormish..-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - same as above LeszekB 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Notable people who have any connection to Polish ethnicity, even one ancestor many generations back, or only alleged connections. E.g. Friedrich Nietzsche, John Kerry.

• Object - no claim of notability and probably half of US would fit...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object There are millions of notable people with SOME Polish ancestry. This doesn't make them Polish. LeszekB 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Notable people whose connection to Polish ethnicity is not confirmed but they have Polish surnames, or whose surnames may seem Polish. E.g. Howard Scott Warshaw, Andy Warhol, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Paul Mazursky, Adrien Brody, Robert Siodmak, Zeev Suraski, Sergei Sakhnovski, and all the list of American football players, and wrestlers with Polish surenames [10].

• Object - no claim of notability, and the names can be confusing in both directions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Same as above

7. Anyone who is widely recognised by majority of Poles as a famous Pole.

• Object. Too weaselish. I can just see somebody taking this and running to Copernicus or Jogaila/Jagiełło...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I believe this would probably work out. LeszekB 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Anyone listed in the Polski Słownik Biograficzny

• Support.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Piotrus LeszekB 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. Any naturalized citizen.

• Object - no claim of notability.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if the person is notable (which I think initially was the implication) then sure. LeszekB 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Anyone listed in any Polish encyclopedia whith a statement that this person was a Pole (Polish...)

• Support.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support LeszekB 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the above vote seems to be on a verge of WP:OR. We should not attempt to redefine the meaning of "Polish" by a means of voting. --Lysy^talk 07:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, there is no other way. People are not sourcing Poles based on sources that say they are "Polish." We need a standard. At this point, there's no way to prevent peopel from just adding anyone of Polish connections to a list or category. LeszekB 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the entire WP:N an OR by that logic?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, that if you would read this "Polish Biographical Dictionary", you would certainly find, that many people mentioned there are not Polish by any means, but rather People that had influence in Poland's history (like Michal Radziwill the Black - Im certain you would not want to call that person Polish in the face, if you would meet him). There are load of such people in this list.--Lokyz 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think that calling somebody Polish is an insult, I know you have different views on that. Setting that aside, PSB indeed includes foreigners and people who are not Polish but simply Poland-related - but they are minority, and common sense should be enough deal with this cases, primarily: whether PSB calls sb Polish or not, should be enough.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting words into my mouth - I did not say "insulting", and please, there's no need to distort my words, ok? Apology would be approprate here.

As for why Radziwill certainly would not like to be called Polish you may read in the same PSB.--Lokyz 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am waiting for it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you fogive me for a little OT spam, but it's quite amazing :) The Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition has reached the second and final round. For the second round, which lasts through Wednesday, February 28, the 321 pictures on the shortlist have been narrowed to the top 11 (due to a tie). Users with at least 100 edits on any local project or Commons can vote on their favorite of the 11 photos. The finalists can be seen and voted upon here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A few days ago, the article on Roman Polański was moved to Roman Polanski after a discussion in which no Polish editors took part. I wish to call your attention to this fact and to state that I strongly believe it should be moved back to Polański (unless it can be shown he has legally changed his name). What say you? Biruitorul 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was a discussion on that... at least I thought I asked somewhere somebody for sources on n vs ń in this case. In either case, I suggest comparing popularity of those two variants, as well as which is preffered by the subject, and acting on the basis of hard data.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has evidence that the subject still spells his name "Roman Polański" then I'd be happy to see it kept at that location. However his personal website does not use the diacritical, nor has he used it in movie credits. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so the most common usage in this language should be used, not the usage in Polish. -Will Beback · † · 01:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I belive a better name would be Polish Legions (Napoleonic period) or just Polish Legions (Napoleon). Comments appreciated on Talk:Polish Legions in Italy.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination camp#Post war currently this article seems to imply that the Poles/Polish goverment had something to hide. After reading this question i was so frustrated that I added some new info to the Extermination camp, educating people why nazi extermination camps were built in Poland seems to be a very difficult task. Mieciu K 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Mieciu K 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one liner is currently on PROD. Could someone take a look if it is, by a chance, expandable? Pavel Vozenilek 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please check out this person (Włodzimierz Stożek) and determine whether he was Polish-Ukrainian? Looks like he was only Polish, the very fact that he lived in Lwow does not mean anything about his Ukrainian roots. Does anyone know? Or are the Ukrainians adding Poles to their list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tymek (talk • contribs).

Of course they are. Interesting examples include Stefan Banach, Hugo Steinhaus, Feliks Barański, and Adam Rotfeld (the latter was particularly puzzling - his parents were executed by Ukrainians, yet Mibelz (talk · contribs) pushed him on that list...). A reason is the highly misleading header putting essentially all kind of people just slightly related to Ukraine as Ukrainians. In particular this includes those born in Lwów at the time it was called Lwów... I argued for more precision (e.g. separate subsections at the very least), but it was again reverted by Mibelz and recently reedited by our favorite anon 67.180.something (still vandalizing Banach, Steinhaus etc) to be as arbitrary as possible. I've just reverted some names, but definitely this is not the end. I think interested editors could add this article to their watchlists. --Beaumont (@) 19:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first clean up our mess, shall we?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time of the year again. Polonization is growing, painfully. More comments would be appreciated, particulary to explain to some readers that 100-year old Russian/Soviet research is less preferable to modern Western one. Sigh.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, it saddens me that you not only resort to canvassing but blatantly misrepresent what the dispute is. Shame. --Irpen 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It saddens me that you result to WP:STALK. Please don't assume bad faith about others actions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. I do not stalk. This board is on my watchlist and I occasionally post here to ask for help or provide my feedback to the ongoing discussion. Mostly amusing is that you know that very well. So, why stalk? Anyway, say what you want. --Irpen 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (in Polish) Chciałbym powiadomić wszystkich, że uruchomiono WikiProject Silesia.
• (in English) Attention everyone, WikiProject Silesia is now open. LUCPOL 23:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (in Polish) Chciałbym powiadomić wszystkich, że uruchomiono Portal:Silesia. LUCPOL 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (in English) Attention everyone, Portal:Silesia is now open. Balcer 22:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize again with unrelated to Poland annoucement, but I believe this discussion (vote) is very important to Wikipedia. Shortly: DB is a notable critic of Wikipedia who requested that Wikipedia delete his article. I believe that nobody should have the right to censor any information, including among themselves (think if China requests we delete all China-related articles...). This has caused significant controversy. If you want to shape Wikipedia's future, please vote - and in this case I will take exceptional stance and strongly advice voting Overturn deletion (undelete).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Several_images.2C_see_below. An admin from Katowice deleted my photos for 'bad quality' under speedy, violating Commons guidelines (bad quality is not a reason for speedy deletion) - but his friends support his actions :/ This is an evident case of admin abusing his powers, and a bad case of deletionist motives. Comments appreciated (unless we want to see mass deletions on Commons of any images that fails to satisfy some admin's arbitrary quality standards).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another renaming discussed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One these sections (1, 2) get translated, do we duplicate the content, or just insert it in one and link to it from the other? Kind of a silly question, but as a fan of the Kaczyńskis, I suppose I just want to see that information on en.wiki, as well as the article on their father. Biruitorul 04:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO either would do. Generally, however, I prefer self-contained articles, so I tend to duplicate info -- especially if it is not too long. As long as we are not dead-tree encyclopedia, we do not need to save the paper ;-) Let us be reader-friendly and not force him to explore a bunch of pages to find the relevant info. The only situation that justifies linking instead of giving the explicit text arises when we link to a _really_ broader separate main article (a history-of-something or alike); and even in this case a concise résumé is highly helpful. --Beaumont (@) 10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or consider creating a subarticle like Bush family... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If anyone wishes to translate, I can provide a free translation from ro.wiki in exchange. Biruitorul 01:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Assessment. Please comment (and also, please help with Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Assessment in general).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody verify this? I think a good part of that was removed from Slavic mythology for not being verifiable, and parts of it come from deleted subarticles...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

As done once before, can any Polish editor look at the article to see if the article is NPOV? I intend to make it a featured article, but since a lot of content about Poland is included, I figured to see if yall want to look at it first. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be an interesting challenge, I wish you good luck. I will try to help.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question, open to anyone: has there been recent border demarcation issues between Belarus and Poland (from indepdence to present)? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent, no. I vaguely recall something shortly after the IIWW between Poland and SU...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can cover that in the history section, if you want. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago Belarus Wikipedia included some almost revisionistic contents.Xx236 11:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:67.180.67.179 has lately been engaged in a POV-pushing vandalism spree, which began with trying to unreasonably expand the above list and add unsourced claims about people on it, but has now become wider. Examples include [11], [12] [13]. Please keep an eye out for similar edits. Balcer 14:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

There seems to be some gigantic controversy around Upper Silesian Industry Area, Upper Silesian Coal Basin (article just got turned to a redirect in one fell swoop), Upper Silesian Metropolitan Area (also just blanked), Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union and finally Template:Metropolia Katowice, which just got removed from dozens of articles. User:R9tgokunks and User:LUCPOL are engaged in much of this editing.

Now, at this point, I am really not sure what the controversy is, but mass editing articles without discussion is clearly not constructive. Plus, a whole slew of articles related to Silesia are in effect getting disrupted. Help is needed. I invite impartial editors to mediate. Balcer 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left the following missive on User:R9tgokunks discussion page:

Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Upper Silesian Industry Area and Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union are three distinct entities -- please don't redirect these things to one article

I realize that some wikipedians have confused the issue with their edits and unfortunate name choices and article moves, but the truth of the matter is as follows (and largely follows the situation on the Polish wikipedia, with one noted exception stated below):

• Upper Silesian Coal Basin (Polish: Górnosląskie Zagłębie Węglowe, GZW) is a geological designation in geography and describes a wide region saturated with coal deposits. Google for USCB or the extended name and you will see it used in scholarly geological and coal-mining literature. Unfortunately, User:LUCPOL has portrayed it as a metropolitan area on both the Polish and English wikipedias. This should be fixed, and is the exception I allude to above, but redirecting this article about a geological/geographic region to another article about an urban agglomeration which happens to lie within the northern portion of this region is not the way to do it.
• Upper Silesian Industry Area is the large agglomeration situated within the northern part of Upper Silesian Coal Basin. In Polish it is GOP or Górnosląski Okręg Przemysłowy/aglomeracja katowicka/konurbacja górnosląska among others, but certainly not "Górnosląskie Zagłębie Węglowe" (Upper Silesian Coal Basin). It has about 2.8 million inhabitants, and is centered around [[Katowice] and its cluster of neighboring cities such as Gliwice, Bytom, Zabrze, Chorzów, Sosnowiec.
• Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, (Polish: Górnosląski Związek Metropolitalny, GZM) is a proposed union of 14 cities which have the legal status of urban counties. These cities happen to be a large portion of the Upper Silesian Industry Area, but this union is not the same thing as the metropolitan area/agglomeration known as Upper Silesian Industry Area (GOP). This union has very definite goals (see the section which I added before you blanked the article into a redirect). It is not, however, a new single municipality/super-city. Its combined population is 2.1 million. It should not be a redirect to the article about the agglomeration of which it is part, either.
• There is another, smaller, agglomeration/metropolitan area to the southwest of the Upper Silesian Industry Area - it's the Rybnik Coal Area or the Rybnik Coal District (Polish: Rybnicki Okręg Węglowy, ROW). It has 0.7 million inhabitants. LUCPOL argues that the two metropolitan areas have coalesced into one "de facto" metropolitan area, which he calls Upper Silesian Coal Basin, but that's premature - I find no support for this in literature.

In sum, referring to the Polish acronyms which are confirmed/verifiable/acutally used by everyone, it's best to reflect in wikipedia the following reality: there are two metropolitan areas (GOP = 2.8 million, ROW = 0.7 million) within a coal basin (GZW), and that the larger agglomeration includes within its area a proposed union of 14 cities (GZM). That's the facts, and I ask you to not be a party to further making a mess of them with harmful, confusing redirects. Take care, --Mareklug ^talk 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, LUCPOL zmieniłem zawartość artykułów Upper Silesian Coal Basin (GZW), Upper Silesian Industry Area (GOP), Rybnik Coal Area (ROW) i Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union (GZM) według uwag User:Mareklug. Z artykułów Upper Silesian Coal Basin (GZW) i Upper Silesian Industry Area (GOP) usunąłem wiele dublujących i zbędnych danych np. spisy teatrów (theatre), znanych osób itp [14], [[15]]. Tego typu spisy powinny być raczej w jednostkach administracyjnych np. Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union (GZM), a nie w aglomeracjach. Zmieniłem też wstęp tych artykułów np. w artykule Upper Silesian Industry Area (GOP) pisze teraz że jest to okręg przemysłowy i konurbacja (choć Mareklug jest za słowem aglomeracja, ja jestem innego zdania - bo to conurbation), w Upper Silesian Coal Basin (GZW) pisze teraz że jest to zagłębie węglowe i de facto obszar metropolitalny (określenie "de facto" jest w tym przypadku ważne, bo nie jest to oficjalne). Myślę, że teraz te artykuły są OK i jest kompromis zadowalający obie strony. LUCPOL 14:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Silesian Coal Basin

(in Polish)Powyzsze zmiany LUCPOLa troche pomagaja, niestety, w przypadku artykulu o GZW daleko mu jeszcze do prawdy. Artykul zawiera nieodpowiednie grafiki - okolice Katowic na starej mapie z 1905, ktore nie pokazuje granic zaglebia, i nieaktualna (bledna) mapke GZM, ktory jest mniejszy od tego na mapie (nie ma w nim Bedzina, Knurowa i Czeladzi), i jest jeszcze mniejszym fragmentem opisywanego obszaru. Potrzebna jest mapa GZW. Sama definicja jest bledna - to "de facto metropolitan area" jest moim zdaniem tworczoscia wlasna LUCPOLa - i zaglebie *nie jest* poprawnie zdefiniowane jako obszar lezacy czesciowo w Polsce i czesciowo na Czechach. Totez tabela miast na obszarze zaglebia tez jest mylna i wylicza tylko miasta GOP i ROW, pomijajac czeskie. No i nikt nie twierdzi ze czeskie miasta zaglebia i polskie funcjonuja jako aglomeracja/zespol miejski, wiec cale to "de facto metropolitan area" jest wysoce niestosowne chocby z tego powodu. A artykul, zamiast powtarzac danych o transporcie z artykulu o GZM-ie czy GOP-ie powinien tyczyc sie faktow gorniczych i geologicznych o zaglebiu - co tam tkwi z ziemi, np. duze zloza metanu; ile wegla wydobyto a ile jeszcze pozostalo, itp.

(in English)The above changes made by LUCPOL help a bit, but, unfortunately, in the case of the Upper Silesian Coal Basin the article is still far from being truthful. The article contains inappropriate graphics - the vicinity of Katowice on an old map from 1905, which do not indicate the extent/boundaries of the coal basin, and an outdated (faulty) map of the Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, which is smaller than the area claimed on the map (it does not include Bedzin, Knurow and Czeladz). The definition of the subject of the article is mistaken -- the phrase "de facto metropolitan area" is in my opinion original research of LUCPOL - and the coal basin *is not* properly defined as an area straddling Poland and the Czech Republic. And so, the table of cities found in the coal basin is wrong and lists only the constituent cities of Polish metro areas Upper Silesian Industry Area (GOP) and Rybnik Coal Area (ROW), omitting the Czech cities. And no one makes a claim that the Polish and Czech cities of the coal basin function as one agglomeration/metropolitan area. Therefore, this "de facto metropolitan area" definition is wrong, if only for that reason. And the article, instead of repeating the information about transport and roads included in the articles about Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union or Upper Silesian Industry Area should focus on the mining-related and geological information pertaining to the coal basin -- what's in the ground there; for example, considerable quantities of methane; how much coal has been dug up and how much more remains, and so on. --Mareklug ^talk 06:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kolego Mareklug. Usunąłem właśnie z artykułu mapkę GZM [16] lecz mapka zagłębia z 1905 roku zostaje choćby dlatego, że nie ma lepszej. Jak na razie nikomu ona nie przeszkadzała. Jak stworzysz lub znajdziesz lepszą to wtedy możemy pogadać :) Co do twojego cytatu: "zaglebie *nie jest* poprawnie zdefiniowane jako obszar lezacy czesciowo w Polsce i czesciowo na Czechach" - a czy to tylko i wyłącznie wina osoby która pisała artykuł? Tu jest przecież Wikipedia. Zamiast ciągle narzekać to trzeba było uzupełnić artykuł lub wpisać o tym w dyskusji artykułu, aby wpisał to kto inny. Napisałeś również "nikt nie twierdzi ze czeskie miasta zaglebia i polskie funcjonuja jako aglomeracja/zespol miejski, wiec cale to "de facto metropolitan area"..." - a ja się ciebie spytam: jakim prawem edytujesz w artykule o którym nie masz zielonego pojęcia i robisz zamieszanie odnośnie rzeczy o których nic nie wiesz? Czy ty nie rozumiesz, że aglomeracja, konurbacja, zespół miejski i obszar metropolitalny do cztery odrębne rzeczy? Jeśli nie widzisz pomiędzy nimi różnicy do dlaczego tu trolujesz? A teraz z innej beczki - obejżyj sobie tę grafikę: [17]. I ostatni cytat z tego twojego postu: "A artykul, zamiast powtarzac danych o transporcie z artykulu o GZM-ie czy GOP-ie powinien tyczyc sie faktow gorniczych i geologicznych o zaglebiu - co tam tkwi z ziemi, np. duze zloza metanu; ile wegla wydobyto a ile jeszcze pozostalo, itp" - dublujące dane o transporcie już usunąłem wcześniej (to tak na marginesie), co do reszty tego zdania się zgadzam, ale nie oczekuj że Ja - osoba znająca język angielski na poziomie en-1 zacznie tłumaczyć geologiczne teksty o zagłębiu. Tym to możesz się przecież sam zająć, ponieważ znasz lepiej język angielski ode mnie. I nie zrzucaj całej winy na mnie, bo kolejny raz piszesz w postach "LUCPOL to, LUCPOL tamto", jakbym Ja był co kolwiek winny :( LUCPOL 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to settle on a name for pl:Górnosląski Okręg Przemysłowy

Part of the problem with some Silesia articles, aside from excessive sharing of content, is the choice of name for the English article about pl:Górnosląski Okręg Przemysłowy/aglomeracja katowicka/konurbacja katowicka/konurbacja górnosląska/etc. Translations of Polish "GOP":

• Upper Silesian Industry Area
• Upper Silesian Industrial Area
• Upper Silesian Industrial Region
• Upper Silesian Industrial District
  • Support. To my ear, this is the natural English translation, precise and elegant. logologist|Talk 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A generic existing redirect:

• Upper Silesian Metropolitan Area

One might also consider:

• Katowice agglomeration
• Katowice Metropolitan Area
• Katowice conurbation
• Upper Silesian agglomeration
• Upper Silesian conurbation
• Katowice Metro Area (might be in use as including the Rybnik area)

There might be more candidates. The article about Silesian Voivodeship chooses to use "Upper Silesian Industrial District", albeit without linking it to anything. --Mareklug ^talk 05:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dzien dobry!! I wanted to let you guys know I have proposed a WikiProject on the Revolutions of 1848 here. Come join if you're interested! K. Lásztocska 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a WikiProject just for that? Isn't it a bit excessive? I will surely help with related articles, though!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Emax and User talk:Witkacy (and add them to your watchlist). Those now inactive users have uploaded many Poland-related pictures in the past, but didn't bother with sourcing them, and often claimed PD for non-PD images. Now their images are getting tagged and deleted after few days, since almost nobody checks their userpages. Please help find sources (Google Image search is very useful) and/or reclassify those images (fairuse, etc.) so they are kept.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:Gerea-en has moved "Lwów-Warsaw School of Logic" to "Lviv–Warsaw Philosophical School of Logic." Two questions:

• 1. Why "Philosophical School"?
• 2. Why "Lviv"?

Any thoughts? logologist|Talk 06:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google search doesn't support the new version.Xx236 11:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that pesky en dash. It should be changed back to a hyphen. Appleseed (Talk) 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert as disputed controversial move with no consensus. Simple.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously undone Gerea-en's move of the article. This time, "The page could not be moved." Is there an administrator who could facilitate a move? I have limited experience of wiki-bureaucracy, and at the moment little desire to increase that experience. logologist|Talk 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that the redirect page must be removed and the move will be possible.Xx236 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the redirect, and the School of Logic still would not repatriate. logologist|Talk 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've succeeded in getting the article over to "Lwow-Warsaw School of Logic," but of course that's not fully satisfactory, without the "ó" in "Lwów." logologist|Talk 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the term "Exploding Diet" used to describe the Sejm of the PLC? Google Books and Google Scholar turn up nothing (Poland-related, that is). I think the article should be deleted. It's probably bogus and doesn't contain any information worth merging into Sejm. Appleseed (Talk) 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article does not provide a single source, there’s something similar (if not equally puzzling) here. The document at www2.fultonschools.org is called APE REVIEW. The only reference to "exploding diet" is phrased as a question: What three states declined in Central/eastern Europe in the 17th & 18th centuries & why? Include: Peace of Karlowitz, exploding diet, Germanic liberties & capitulations.
The quiz called APE REVIEW could also be based on a hoaxed article about Poland created by User:69.212.2.169 on 19 October 2005, but I have no way of finding out what came first, the article or the quiz? My gut feeling is that it might be a hoax. The same user made some very suspicious edits to only 4 articles and than ceased to exist on that date. --Poeticbent  talk  22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote move to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Balcer 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second the motion. logologist|Talk 00:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article title like "Coat of arms of Prus" seems awkward and ambiguous. Why not "Prus coat of arms"? Better yet, "Prus coat-of-arms"? logologist|Talk 06:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'd suggest renaming all coats from Category:Polish coats of arms to such a model at once (bot?), otherwise we will have a mess.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Who knows how to set a bot to the task?

I would strongly urge the "coat-of-arms" version, with hyphens, for enhanced legibility of the phrase.

logologist|Talk 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think the version without hyphens is most common. Appleseed (Talk) 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I searched Google for "coat-of-arms" the results automatically included "coat of arms."
My results displayed:

• about 1,660,000 for "coat of arms"
  
• about 1,640,000 for "Coat of Arms"
  

It all boils down to personal preference. My preference is with "coat of arms" since the first 200 web results I looked at use it without exception. Phrase "coat-of-arms" is used only 4 times in the first 500 pages displayed by Google. It's an oddity. --Poeticbent  talk  17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize "coat-of-arms" as an "oddity," any more than I would "commander-in-chief." Still, I won't fight over the hyphens, as long as we can get something less clunky than "Coat of arms of Prus." logologist|Talk 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bot requests is the place to ask for bots to do something like this, I believe.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

See Help:Sorting.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_March_4#Image:Jozef_Pilsudski_na_Kasztance.jpg and comment on this example of meta:copyright paranoia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to join the project, so I went and read something. Look at the "discussion" of the articles Battle of Somosierra and Plan Peking and read my remarks. There are only two articles I could read today and I am scared. If other articles are in the same condition, probably we have to start whole project from the very begining. We can not place on en-Wiki wrong translations or false informations if we do not want to create for us opinion of amateurs and dilettantes. belissarius 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of us are amateurs and dilettantes. There are precious few professionals editing Wikipedia (despite calls to arms). I am not aware of any professional historian with Polish specialization contributing to this project - we do what we can. We have done quite a few articles that I think we can be proud of (Polish-Soviet War, Katyn massacre, Jogaila) - but yes, it's a tip of the iceberg. Alas, there is only that much that a small group of volunteers can do :/ Still, every day, it gets better... Thank you for your comments - every little bit helps. And remember: Be bold in updating pages.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand (please, do not feel offended for "dilettantes") - correct me if I am wrong - am I able to update, improve or correct articles I found not paralelled with historical science? If so, I am starting tomorrow. Here I will just show you what I am telling about:

our knowledge of the Battle of Somosierra have two sources - one is the 13. Bulletin of de Grande Armeé, and the second "Memoirs of the 1. Regiment of the Polish Chevaulegers of the Imperial Guard of Napoleon I" written by Jozef B. Zaluski in the Krakow's periodical "Czas" from 1856 to 1858. There are not other evidences from eye-witnesses of the battle, and we have to back our article on that relations. Author(s) of the mentioned pl-Wiki and en-Wiki articles used instead the dubious article from the Polish newspaper "Rzeczpospolita" in which I can see many mistakes, as for number of cannons in the Spanish batteries, as well as for number of charges. I am going to improve the article in pl-Wiki as well. belissarius 05:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can edit anything you want. If you can, please use inline citations to back up any changes. And feel free to ask us for help on any technical matters!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this work will never be done, but I can say that more or less it is ready. Please check out the category

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Polish_historical_voivodeships_%281921%E2%80%931939%29

I have described the voivodeships of interbellum Poland, adding a trivia page. Please feel free to add any information you find Tymek 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Kloze, an article about a Polish former footballer , was brought to my attention when it was nominated on AfD (it looks like a landslide keep). In searching for sources to expand it I found little in English, but it looks as though there are several promising online sources in Polish. Would any Polish-speaking Wikipedian care to expand it a little? Thanks. Oldelpaso 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The list of Polish composers has turned into a joke. Besides, it shares the same fate as all lists of the similar kind. Take a look. [18] On 12 January 2007 User:81.219.149.110 who did nothing else in Wikipedia [19] added 14 names to the list in one sweep, hot linking them in red. The subtitle of the article says that the List of Polish composers is a list of "notable and representative Polish composers." Meanwhile, quite a few new names added by User:81.219.149.110 were of people born after 1980 who are in their early twenties now, fresh from school at best. The article is advertised on List of Poles in Music section as the so called "Main article."
The same can be said about the List of Polish painters. 135 names on that list are dead linked in red. And again, the list is advertised on the List of Poles as the so called Main article in the Fine arts subsection. [20] This is beyond vanity. This is spamming. --Poeticbent  talk  04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see relevant discussion above as well as recently started discussion about artist notability criteria at WP:N(P).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the entire list of Germans [21] there are only nine names hot linked in red. On the corresponding List of Italians [22] there are also just nine names marked in red. On the list of Italian painters, which is linked to the main article under "see also" (not "Main article") there's ony one name hot linked to an empty page. [23] What I mean is that in most cases (with notable exceptions), if there's no article on a particular individual, there's no place for that name on the list of notable Poles. Notability criteria for artists [24] is one thing, spamming the list of notable Poles is another. --Poeticbent  talk  16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding the following information at the top of the list:

Names that cannot be confirmed in Wikipedia database nor through given sources are a subject of removal. If you would like to add a new name please consider writing about the artist first.

--Poeticbent  talk  19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Red links should not be permitted on people lists, especially the more spam-prone general ones, unless acompanied by a reference.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections to this proposal, would you please post the above disclaimer on the corresponding pages including List of Polish painters, List of Polish composers and possibly the List of Poles. Once there, I’d like to propose and help to conduct a cleanup job. --Poeticbent  talk  16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but the tone of the text above is not right. Karol 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above disclaimer has been rephrased and posted twice by User:LeszekB and than confirmed by User:Logologist in his edits, with User:Poeticbent and User:Piotrus in agreement. That's why I urge User:Karol to seek consensus for his novel ideas rather than attempt to whitewash the chronic deficiency of the list of Polish composers. --Poeticbent  talk  21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Poles has been revamped as of March 14, 2007, with considerable team effort. I invite you all to check it out. --Poeticbent  talk  18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice job. It seems to have been cleared of anyone dubiously Polish. A reminder to everyone that the list is a brief mention of famous Poles, so it would probably be wise if the most popularly known Poles were given precedence in the Literature and Painting sections etc. Just for future tweaks.

Last Polish list needing clean up

Anyway, I've been trying to establish this same sort of standard for Polishness on List of Polish Jews, including the addition of a header, but it was met with a ferocious edit war and at this point has just rounded down to bickering on the talk page. The opposing side is pretty much exhausted of any new arguments so now it's just dwindled into strange accusations of original research and precedence. If anyone cares to comment, it would help in whipping that list back into shape. LeszekB 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion about scope and name of this article. Former name was 'Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers '. Comments appreciated on article's talk page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One user is disputing whether this article deserves the GA status (it was recently promoted). Comments appreciated on article's talk page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Would anybody see a good reason why we have Category:Polish art as a subcategory of Category:Arts in Poland? I'd suggest merger.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the standard category structure. Appleseed (Talk) 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I am sorry, but I don't see any difference between those categories based on name...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I supose that "Polish art" is for masterpieces of polish artists no matter of their current owner or place of exhibition."Arts in Poland" would be for pieces that are currently in Poland, like Leonardo's Dama z łasiczką. Radomil talk 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each one has a "by country/nationality" parent category, which means that other cultures also have both these categories. Appleseed (Talk) 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the arts, the term "the arts" is broader than "art", so perhaps "Arts in Poland" should be the parent of "Polish art" and not the other way around. Appleseed (Talk) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest sending this forgotten artifact to WP:MFD. Any objections?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me, let's get rid of it. Appleseed (Talk) 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just {{prod}} it to spare everyone's time. --Irpen 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heve we got any idea how to deal with this article? Many articles that lik there refers no to modern ethnic group but to tribe of Ślężanie Radomil talk 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split? Ślężanie can certainly use the article, what's left is about modern Silesians.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:Emax artifact. Please help with fixing it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of our members, User:Darwinek, has shown some bad judgement recently (blocking opponents he was involved in a dispute). This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. I believe some friendly but stern comments about 'with great power comes great responsibility' would help Darwinek to understand the situation. I believe he has made a mistake (or several) and should be more careful in the future, although some proposed solution (including banning from the project!) seem over the top.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please do not use strawman arguments to canvass supporters. Obviously, the banning won't fly. Desysopping might as the user has a pattern of poor judgment and repetition of bad blocks after past apologies. Also, the user in question has repeatedly attacked his opponents with extreme offenses including in non-Enlgish, including after requests to at least use English. Some of such offenses took place in your own exchanges with Darwinek, also in Polish, were you joined him and used ethnic slurs bashing your and Darwinek's "enemies". --Irpen 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you have any diffs to support any of your accusations? This board is not the place for your personal grievances against various editors. Appleseed (Talk) 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least we have another evidence of Irpen accusing his opponents of canvassing and using ethnic slurrs...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely accusing you mean? This persistent demands for the diffs aimed at wasting my time when you know exactly what I am talking about goes on and on. But here it is just for you. [25] [26] --Irpen 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you for providing diffs to the place where Darwinek explains in Zaolzie gwara this word has no negative connotations he is aware off. But of course you assume bad faith and go on to accuse him of ethnic slurrs in several places over the past few months...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, in that particular set of diffs, an ethnic slur came from your mouth where you responded to Darwinek. Darwinek entry was simply a very disrespectful comment on directed towards his peer-editors. And I also meant to include this one, to which your gracious entry was a response. --Irpen 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Why do you forget to mention that this 'ethnic slur' was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Piotrus (which ended in another editor close to getting a civility parole and certainly no consensus it was an ethnic slurr), similar no consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#Disruption_during_polls_and_xenophobic_remarks - and in any case since some do perceive it as offensive, I apologized for it (at User:Durova/Mediation - even through, I repeat again, many users agreed it is not offensive). You, on the other hand, have never apologized for many personal attacks you've made on my person - such as your constant accusations of canvassing/vote staking (just see this page, do I need to provide a diff?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "accusation" for the vote staking is not a personal attacks. If you can show any evidence of my "attacks" on you, I am ready to look at it and withdraw if there were any. It is, however, Darwinek, who is on trial here. I think the user went much further than accusing others of staking and canvassing as I have explained above. --Irpen 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is neither discussion of Irpen's or Piotrus edits, it is EOT for me. However, Irpen, if you continue to accuse my every second post on this board of being 'canvassing', I will seek WP:DR steps, as I consider such behaviour offensive to me and disruptive to other editors (who have little interest in reading discussions such as above).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I can't prevent you from seeking any steps you want. I've seen much of your wikilawyering at different Wikipedia space boards and I expect this to continue. I pointedly do not see any diffs showing my "personal attacks" in your last entry. --Irpen 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll for renaming the article. Comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS again? Piotrus, did you see that one vote was closed early because of canvassing earlier today? --Irpen 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated before, this board is intended for exactly these types of announcements. I myself have made announcements about proposed page moves in the past, without any problems. I shall say it again: this board is not the place to air your grievances against other editors. Appleseed (Talk) 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads OT case

Appleseed, please cool down. I do not come here just to air some grievances. I comment on specific issues, be it recruiting help to save the user from well-deserved sanctions at arbcom or to affect the ongoing poll by the mass influx of votes like it has happened here. Besides we likely see only a tip of the iceberg when watching this board. Judging from this coordinated entry of three of this board's members with no visible onwiki communication, more seems to be going on behind the curtains. -Irpen 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the unfortunate email campaign doomed the Internet Troll Squads article. But that has nothing to do with announcing proposed page moves on this board. As for your thinly veiled accusations regarding "three of this board's members", I suggest you take your conspiracy theories somewhere else. Appleseed (Talk) 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apploud you for analyzing the wiki communication of those three members. Surely, it's would never be considered stalking, merely a proper analysis by a concerned Wikipedian to ensure there is no cabal. And indeed, your finding that they did not communicate on Wiki yet took part in the same vote is certainly proof enough of the existence of some cabal! Unfortunatly, this is nothing new, Irpen: Polish cabal is already listed at Wikipedia:List of cabals... On the other hand, may I suggest you further analyze the particulary interesting correlation between common characteristics of editors voting to delete? Who knows, maybe you will uncover something equally interesting... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, are you saying that these three votes of three wikifriends cast right one after another at that poll was a mere coincidence despite the poll's being run for several days and that no communication and calls to vote took place? If so, I will take your word that this was the case no matter how unlikely this seemed to me originally. --Irpen 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get the feeling you're not being sincere? There are many ways to find pages on WP. Relevant ones may include WP:AFD, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe, Special:Contributions, etc. But if you insist this board is just the "tip of the iceberg", a mere front for the various nefarious activities of the Polish Cabal, who am I stop you? Appleseed (Talk) 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appleseed, all it takes here is just say that the seemingly coordinated voting was a coincidence rather than a result of the off-wiki communication. I said already that I will take a user's word for it. Can you just say that no calls to vote were passed over the email or other off-wiki means? If you say yes, I will take it. --Irpen 20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen: I am not aware of any editor asking others to vote in any specific way ('keep' or 'delete') in this case. However I personally spread information about this vote (ex. here and here). I see nothing wrong with spreading information about any vote or discussion, as long as there is no pressure on the users informed to vote in a specific way. Spreading information is the best way to ensure a fair vote/discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting this strange (perhaps wrongful) feeling that someone is trying to make a lawyerly Q&A game here. If I wanted to affect this vote, I would not need to ask a bunch of Lithuanian editors to vote in a "specific way". Just being selective in the set of users you notify is enough to ensure you get the right votes. My question was whether you (or anyone) have anything to do with those votes cast that way shortly one after another. I am not here to demand answers and you can ignore my questions but please do not play around with elaborated wording. My feeling is that some off-wiki communication took place in case of these three votes. I voiced my view. Now, you could just ignore my statement or state plainly that it is false (no off-wiki communication is responsible for this apparently coordinated set of votes). What I get instead is elaboratedly evasive answers. If you do not want to answer, do not answer but please spare me of the word games. It seems to me that the communication took place. So far, no one said that this was not the case in a straight way. --Irpen 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, it is you who is playing wikilawyering (or some other strange game). I told you clearly above that yes, I did spread information about this vote to other editors that might be interested. I gave you diffs to two groups (Russian editors and military editors) which I have notified. Out of curiosity: why don't you complain about me notifying the Russian editors and military history editors - certainly two large possible cabals with much interest in that vote? Certainly there is proof enough that many Russia-interested editors took part in that vote, and so there is much room to rant about canvassing in that regard, including off-wiki one, since I am not aware of any on-wiki notification about this AfD to Russian editors before my note, yet many took part in the debate before it... That said, I have no interest in speculating about who might have contacted who and how - as I wrote before, I believe information about such events should be spread as wide as possible, and if anybody spread info about this discussion, I don't care how or to whom he did so - more power to him, as long as he didn't force others to vote in a specific way. EOT for me.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, can you just say that you did not (or did) contact these two users off-wiki on this matter. Yes/no/"refuse to answer" are the only clear answers to the question that I can think of. You keep posting sets of off-topic opinions about what's proper and what's not. You can as well ignore the question which is the same as refuse to answer. You do not have to answer any question I am asking. But it is not constructive to respond with empty talk. If you don't feel like responding, then don't. --Irpen 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you first address the much more visible issue of high-number of Russia-interested editors dominating that vote? Or was it already addressed as an issue that only those editors should have the right to discuss?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, we can address the other issue first, if you want (but noting your persistent avoidance to give a straight answer to a very simple question). Your diff about makes gives an out of context citations and the context is given by the following entry. The loss of the invaluable editor of this project remains a sour wound to Wikipedia to this day, while you might not be so unhappy about having your content opponent not around anymore. Anyway, this is OT, I agree. The simple question was whether you sent emails to those users could have been answered with just one word. --Irpen 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I see no reason to answer your simple questions in more detail" when you fail to address any part of my questions. Out of curiosity, 'the loss of which invaluable editor' do you mean? Surely not User:Ghirlandajo, who is quite active both in article and various discussion namespaces...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Piotrus. Ghirla is not really editing anymore. You know that better than anyone as you did a lot to make this happen. --Irpen 00:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So you accusee me of driving him away (proof?) and claim that a user with 20+ edits daily is 'not really editing'. You know, I'd very much like to drive away and thus raise the activity of editors like Halibutt ([27]) or Balcer ([28]) to that level. Alas, they seem to have been drivien away from this project by much more dedicated trolls than myself ;> Now, if you have nothing further to add to this other than bad faith speculations and attacks, I strongly suggest EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...have been driven away from this project by much more dedicated trolls than myself. Hmmm? Dr. Dan 14:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I asked Ghirla at his talk and he will respond if he choses to.

As for your "I see no reason to answer your simple questions in more detail", note that you did not answer it in any detail. So, did you send out emails or not? If you don't want to give a straight answer, please do not give any answer rather than make another evasive statement. In such case, simply not responding to this will do. --Irpen 02:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Irpen, I didn't send any emails regarding this AfD vote. Satisfied, my dear inquisitor? Now, I wonder if I should ask Balcer and Halibutt whether you were one of the reasons they limited their involvement with Wiki... PS. When Ghirla left Wikipedia for a few weeks, his note didn't mention me....-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two versions, both supported by quite reliable sources. Please comment at Talk:Borders of Poland.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Does the term "Polish clans" jar on anyone else? The expression was never used in Poland or in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. An individual was "of the [fill-in-the-blank] coat-of-arms," and many unrelated families might use that same coat-of-arms (Polish: "herb"). Why introduce a term ("Polish clans") that is completely alien to Polish history? logologist|Talk 08:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to reserch this more, but I believe the issue is the Polish term 'ród' (plural, 'rody').-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish "ród" can be "family," "parentage," "descent," "kin," "stock," even (in reference to a primitive society) "tribe." In an extended sense of "family," "ród" can refer to the "human family," or "mankind" (as in the title of Stanisław Staszic's 1820 book, Ród ludzki). But "ród" is not "clan," and "clan" is an anatopism in relation to Polish history. logologist|Talk 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... should we move this to Polish noble family? Incidentaly this would fit our categories :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to be a list or an article? If it's the latter, then we already have szlachta. If it's the former, then we should name it List of Polish noble families and make it the main article of Category:Polish noble families. Appleseed (Talk) 02:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, something should be done about the article The Princely Houses of Poland. It looks like Gustavo has put a lot of work into it, but I'm not sure he's going about it the right way. Perhaps it should be "listified" into List of Polish aristocracy or something similar. Appleseed (Talk) 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all excellent points. logologist|Talk 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is always my list of szlachta... :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this word be used synonymously with Polish tribes moreso than anything else, as in the tribes pre-900. LeszekB 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about a later period. logologist|Talk 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Although feel free to expand Polish tribes, a stub I recently added, and which needs all the help it can get :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A newly created account user Litwa (talk · contribs) besides a name that does not contributes to the healthy climate here has all the features of the same good old Ksenon/Reichenbach/Truthseeker. The passion to Radio Maryja, habitual stalking and other whatnots. The newborn started the activity from the stalking spree on the heels of M0RD00R (talk · contribs). May I ask that this community deals with the problematic user to save us all the effort of having to deal with it at different pages designed for such matters. Also, someone here not only has a button to block the stalker but can also nicely rollback these edits by a click of the button... --Irpen 06:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give Litwa a warning, for now, about tag trolling. I see nothing meriting a rollback other than the Radio Maryja incident?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we shouldn't reorganize the modern chronological part, that is sections after Young Poland which ends in 1918. Polish culture in the Interbellum is still a red link (anybody could write a few words? It is the last red link in that template...). I just created stub on Polish culture during World War II, which is probably OK, but then we have Socialist realism in Poland (which was meant to describe Polish culture during communist times, but I think socrealism was not the only trend during that era, particulary after 1950s) and Culture in modern Poland which actually describes communist times, too... Help? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:Occupation_of_Poland_(1939-1945)#Fork_name.3F on whether Occupation of Poland (1939-1945) article (former Treatment of Polish citizens by the occupants) should be renamed back, split, merged, etc.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Is Polander a valid redirect to Poland? I checked the interwikis, and I don't think it's the name of Poland in another language (like some of the other redirects to that article). Appleseed (Talk) 17:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. n. 1. A native or inhabitant of Poland; a Pole. Webster's 1913 Dictionary (also [29], wiktionary) and genrally, if it is a hoax, it has spread pretty widely. All things considered, I'd redirect it to Poles. If you want to consider deletion, WP:RFD.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I thought it might be something like that. I've changed the redirect so it points to Poles. Appleseed (Talk) 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an extensive effort to combine Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (together with much of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) into a new policy called Wikipedia:Attribution, and its FAQ, WP:ATTFAQ.

Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo questioned whether the result had adequate consensus, and requested:

• "a broad community discussion on this issue", (now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion), followed by
• "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results." (now being drafted at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll)

You are invited to take part; the community discussion should be as broad as possible. If you wish to invite other experienced and intelligent editors, please use neutral language. This message, for example, is {{ATTCD}}. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a joke, but some disagree: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Polish_roulette_.E2.86.92_Russian_roulette.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please look at this short list and consider voting/commenting (and adding that page to your watchlist). Which articles are deleted from Wikipedia is quite important, but there is almost no input from our members on that issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Powiem krótko - przeniosłem dziś na en.wiki szablon mapa lokalizacyjna z polskiej wiki. Efekt do zobaczenia w infoboxie hasła Warsaw. Tylko, że to jedyny infobox z dotychczas używanych w hasłach związanych z Polską, gdzie było to łatwo zaimplementować. Zdecydowanie Template:Infobox City bije na głowę Template:Infobox City Poland, gdzie nawet współrzędne są dodawane przez oddzielny szablon. Są plany zmasowanego dodania haseł polskich miejscowości - gmin wiejskich, miejskich, gmin-miejsko-wiejskich i miast, ale potrzebny dobry infobox. Ktoś jest w stanie pomóc w przeniesieniu polskich infoboxów warunkowych na en.wiki ?--Hiuppo 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - what is special about this map? Looks quite plain to me...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I am interested in the Lemko minority group, and in the history of sixteenth century Poland, as it applies to this group. I also have an interest in the 20th century history of this area of southeast Poland.Pustelnik 13:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Don't hesitate to ask about anything and for anything here :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

If anyone is interested, our German friend Matthead, who has been insisting — against a near-universal consensus of serious historians — that Nicolaus Copernicus was not Polish (what was he, then?) is now introducing conceptual and linguistic distortions into the "History of philosophy in Poland" article. logologist|Talk 04:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the watchlist.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The other day, Matthead deleted Copernicus (and Hevelius, together with their portraits) from the "List of Poles" Astronomy section. logologist|Talk 07:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be already under control. In related news, we seem to have some disruptive activity on Katyn massacre. Another good laugh: see Operation Wilno where some editors are denying that Pilsudski was Polish...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead is back with the vengeance, promoting his views on the List of Poles.[30] For your information, Matthead just reported Logologist for 3RR on Administrators' noticeboard. [31]--Poeticbent  talk  03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both had been blocked for 12h. Logologist should learn there are other ways to deal with this than breaking 3RR - a lesson we all should remember. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De optimo senatore, a book by Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki. Appleseed (Talk) 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I’d like to point your attention to the most recent edit war taking place over the Jewish-Polish-American novelist Jerzy Kosiński. One editor, with the support of a meatpupet, has attempted to make the Poles responsible for the Holocaust by removing almost half of the article and changing its tone including the meaning and purpose of earlier citations. 207.102.64.209 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Please consider registering on en Wikipedia so we can communicate more easily in the future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In having a peer review option for B- and A-classes in our assessment template, like WPMILHIST has, and would be likely to actually review articles?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dzien dobry Piotr, the answer is yes. But it requires others to commit as well. I don't have the necessary expertise by a mile and it'll be best to work as a group. In the beginning at least, best to learn from others. Britlawyer 01:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be probably renamed or integrated with other articles. Ethnic data are needed.Xx236 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why it should be renamed? We also have Wilno Voivodeship, Kresy Wschodnie and Province of Posen Radomil talk 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is lack of references. I'd suggest noting the problem at Lithuanian noticeboard.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says Suvalkai region (Lithuanian Suvalkų kraštas) is the Lithuanian name - it's not precise - the Lithuanian name is Suvalkų krašta, not Suvalkai region. Province of Posen and Wilno Voivodeship existed many years, so the comparison is wrong. Kresy is mythology, not a region. Xx236 07:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do a complete overhaul of all the Polish medals and orders this coming week. IMO the articles as they are are a mess and I propose a few changes.

1. Naming- many of the articles have Polish names, it just seems to me that the name "Krzyż Harcerski" for example is completely meaningless to someone on an English wiki. I propose a move of articles to correct English names. Please comment on whether for example Krzyż Oświęcimski should be named "Oswiecim Cross" or "Auschwitz Cross." Similarly stylistic advice is welcome, ex. Cross of Oswiecim or Oswiecim Cross?

2. Infoboxes- the orders and medals wikiproject has a template for a medal infobox and while it's for military medals I don't see why civilian awards can't also use it. I think all the pages would look better with one of these infoboxes there.

3. Categories- currently I see 3 categories, one general one, one military, and one civilian. Every article seems to have a different category and this is very confusing. Given that most Polish civilian awards are also often awarded to military personnel I think we should just have one general category with everything in it.

4. People's Republic of Poland medals- I think that we should keep one page for a medal regardless of the issuing authority. I'm aware of the differences between prewar and communist medals and it should be mentioned in the body of the article. Other than that I think they should be treated as the same medal.

5. Orders of St. Stanislaw- this is my POV but I think editors needs to crack down on articles referencing these orders. I think it's a grave abuse of the Polish honor that these people are making up history and using wikipedia to lend their illegal awards credibility. Such articles should be plastered in templates disputing factual accuracy and revised to highlight their origins. Seeing as no Polish authority recognizes them they're as good as any other made up medal.

6. I'd like to create a general template for the bottom of each medal's page similar to the ones on British medals. Call it maybe "notable Polish medals" or something like that.

I'll refrain from making controversial edits until I hear some feedback from this board. I would like to ask for your help with anything of the technical nature that I might unintentionally break.

More importantly please comment, I don't want to upset anyone by changing something they feel strongly about. Thanks. JRWalko 21:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this regarding your fifth point. I haven't gotten around to doing it yet... Appleseed (Talk) 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support translating the names and moving the articles (of course, in reasonable bounds - we are not going to translate Virtuti Militari, are we? :). Support infoboxes. I am not sure about categories - can ypu link them? I am not sure what the problem with St.Stan order is - can you elaborate? I will translate pl:Kolejność polskich odznaczeń to Polish order of precedence (decorations and medals) soon.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to change the Virtuti Militari or the Polonia Restituta but I have so far changed Cross of Merit, Cross of Merit with Swords, and maybe I'll get to Cross of the Valorous today. Some of them are fairly self explanatory like Independence and so on but I won't change the other names without discussing it here first.

I got started on infoboxes but I'm leaving some of the fields blank until I look them up in my references. I started changing the categories because for example there were only two medals in "civilian awards of poland" and am trying to consolidate them into one list because I don't think a)there is enough medals to constitute two categories, b)most Polish medals are awarded to both civilians and soldiers, c)it's confusing to browse through all the categories.

The Order of St.Stanislaw doesn't exist anymore. Appleseed listed the current articles and they're essentially all either completely made up medals or the "rights" to the medal that were given to/stolen/sold/whatever to the Russians after the partitions. It wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't for the fact that the order makes gives the recipient's family "hereditary nobility." As someone of Polish ancestry I find it just a little ridiculous that this right rests with, of all people, the Russians. It's equivalent to tying a white eagle figure around your neck and calling yourself a Knight of the Order of the White Eagle. JRWalko 01:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have three naming issues so far: Is Krzyż Walecznych - Cross of the Valorous or Cross of the Valiant? Valorous is a somewhat archaic word, I think valiant is a more appropriate translation. I have two books that list this medal and they each use one of those words. Also Order Krzyża Wojskowego could be Military Cross but that's already an American award so perhaps I should name is Order of the Military Cross? Order Zasługi Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej could be Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland? A number of currently awarded medals don't have articles so I'll create some stubs for them just so they fit in with the other articles and then fill them in later.

I also think pretty much every Polish medal deserves the WikiProject Poland template. Can I go ahead and rate them all "Top importance"? JRWalko 18:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your names are fine - just make sure to create all possible redirects, disambigs and note the alternative names in the articles. I think the medals are mid importance, with the exception of the top ones which may be high.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask Logologist or Poeticbent about naming the articles? If another order with the same name already exists, you can disambig instead of fiddling to come up with something unique. I think all these articles are low importance, with the exception of Virtuti Militari. Appleseed (Talk) 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind to contribute? What is your opinion about the removal of the names of the burned villages? If Lidice has almost an article, why is the list of villages wrong? Xx236 09:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about just merging it into Treatment of Poles by the occuppants? It's an orphan anyway...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any pacification should be at least mentioned in any village article, as in Lidice. It isn't even in the Polish Wikipedia. Why? Xx236 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is preventing you from writing new articles on those Polish villages pacified by the Nazis or adding relevant information to already existing articles. If I were you I would start with the most notorious mass murders like those in Złoczew and Jabłoń-Dobki [32] (which seems to be the proper village name as oppose to Jablonki-Dobki mentioned in the article). Make sure to cross-reference Polish Wikipedia along the way. Good luck. --Poeticbent  talk  14:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:W samo poludnie 4 6 89-Tomasz Sarnecki.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons. Please comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Poland has been selected as one of the hosts, this article may be of interest to the participants in this project. It certainly needs a great deal of improvement. Balcer 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side we have a little time before 2012 :D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a photo of the statue of Bolesław Prus that stands on Krakowskie Przedmieście in Warsaw. The photo is here ("Denkmal") on the German Wikipedia. I would like to place the photo in the English-language "Bolesław Prus" article, but don't know how to copy it into the Commons. I can't make any sense of the directions at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Could someone explain in simple terms how the move is made or, better yet, move the photo into the Commons? Nihil novi 07:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... copy, upload, note original license and source... not sure which part is unclear?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... the whole process. For starters: "copy" to where? "upload" to what? If there were an example to imitate, I imagine I could learn to do it, like any good ape; but I don't see one... or I've missed it. Judging, too, by the "Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons" talk page, others are baffled too. Nihil novi 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's see. Save the photo in the highest resolution possible on your computer. Go to Wikipedia Commons, register or log in, click upload, follow their instructions. I will see what can be done about making the instructions more user friendly (screenshots are probably a good idea).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's helpful. For now, an anonymous editor has kindly moved the statue photo into the Commons, and I've placed it in the "Bolesław Prus" article. Nihil novi 00:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to solve sofisticated copyright problem about very important religious paintings. A.J. 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Are there any Polish sources mentioning the Armenian quote, this quote is about how Hitler reportedly wanted his soldiers to treat Polish citizens. Mieciu K 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything so far. But I will ask others.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a heated Armenian-Turkish debate about if this quote can be atribiuted to A.H. so the opinion of Polish historians would be apreciated in that article. Mieciu K 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M.K has submitted a request for arbitration regarding Piotrus, an editor who frequents this board. If you are an involved party, you may wish to add a statement. Appleseed (Talk) 00:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting list of people there. The Wikipedia would be allegedly much better without the majority of Poles. Xx236 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Time of Troubles - some POVs are more equal than other ones.Xx236 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just a good example of article based on 1911 Britannica and 19th century Russian historians. I tagged it with 1911 pov; at some point it will be rewritten and updated. Quite a few Polish history articles are in similar condition, too...if you find something like this, tag it and move on.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, canvassing, how nice... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your bad faith comments to yourself. Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, people are tired of your lecturing. Honest. It does not earn you any points. Please do not respond with a new barrage. Thank you. --Irpen 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivility and attempts to censor other users are what is not welcomed here. Please take my advice to Grafikm to yourself too and keep such mean-spirited comments off wiki: discuss articles, not editors, per WP:NPA.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I As you can see from above, almost knew it. :( Too bad... --Irpen 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad this prompted me to read the corresponding chapters of the American historian George Vernadsky. I will sure expand the article. --Irpen 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the old Russian-American George Vernadsky? There is his younger follower Lev Gumilev.Xx236 09:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could perhaps translate the pl.wiki section on his current troubles, I would appreciate it. Here's an opinion piece on it. Let me also say that I commend Poland's efforts in this area. No one who had links to the communist power structure has any business participating in politics today. Would that the rest of Europe had people like the Kaczyński brothers and Roman Giertych running it. Biruitorul 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... yes to the first part, no to the second one :) Think in terms of 'collateral damage' :D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Page Polish Cathedral style has been nominated to be deleted. Please vote on this issue.

Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland; please see other discussions there and vote on them too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Uprising has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have {{warsaw-geo-stub}} and {{warsaw-stub}}. I believe one is enough... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Should anyone want to help me expand the article I've just started, I would be grateful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Level_Football_Leagues_in_Interwar_Poland

greets Tymek 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euro 2012

I propose all interested editors to join the authorities of our countries in this cooperative project. I hope there is a sufficient degree of interest and good will about at least this (yet) non-controversial topic if we can't do it all over WP. The Euro 2012 could be made a GA or, perhaps, an FA, and maintained such with our mutual attention and effort. Please help keeping this article cleaned up, help developing it and let's make sure the nationalism of any side can be kept in check while we work on this.

Football is one of the issues which strongly unite my country despite a host of issues that divide it. Let's hope that this topic can unite some Wikipedians divided over other articles.

Volunteers welcome? --Irpen 22:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is an important article, and getting it to a GA/FA status is needed. —dima/talk/ 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Let me also suggest that we should work to improve other articles related to this one. Just to give one example, the infrastructure now being built to support Euro 2012 should be described. And here I have a request: having started the Autostrada A4 (Poland) article about what must be one of the most important motorways for the event in Poland, I would like to see an article about the Ukrainian motorway it will connect to, the M10. Would any of you have the necessary information to get that article going? We could also use articles about other roads connecting the major venues in Ukraine. Balcer 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or (even more related) Olimpiysky National Sports Complex I once destubbed for DYK. That the final will be held there won't hopefully enrage my colleagues :). BTW, with some inline refs it can easily be GAed. All info is from the refs provided. Inlining them is all it would take (plus native speakers' copyediting). --Irpen 01:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but as football is not one of my strong areas I am afraid I cannot help much. But I will see about the 'fringe' areas like infrastructure in Poland (particulary Silesia).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Armia Krajowa#Armia Krajowa or Polish Home Army? for ongoing discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Polish.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at NCGN.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please add this page to your watchlist or check it every few days. Poland-related deletions often need comments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

We could use some more source information on Image:Stefan Czarniecki.jpg. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a request to provide sources for the Ciepielów article. Mieciu K 11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who started the Ciepielów campaign. Xx236 10:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who? Anyway I suggest splitting Ciepielów massacre from Ciepielów, the village is non-controversial by itself, I am sure.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that next time, the campaign is run to snowball someone's RfAdm, the person behind it has decency to post such calls here rather than run it exclusively by email/IM/IRC or whatever, thus, at least, doing this campaign in the open.

--Irpen 01:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bakharev 02:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The support of an admin for the inclusion of this message by Irpen disturbs me. I removed it twice because it is clearly aimed to start off another round of pointless conflict. After all, it amounts to an open accusation against everyone involved on this noticeboard that they might be a person without any decency. How pathetic and sad. And I still have no idea what this is about. Can anyone explain this to me? I beg you. What was the specific wrongdoing, and who might have been involved? Balcer 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, the "wrongdoing" is the behind the scenes canvassing to snowball an RfA. Who exactly was involved we cannot be sure precisely because this was not done in the open. And this is what really disturbs me. I mean, if one does such a thing, why not at least stand up to that? --Irpen 02:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, we must get to the bottom of this. Shall I post this on the Russian, Ukrainian, German and Brazilian noticeboard to speed up the investigation? This indecent bastard might well be lurking there. I am being sarcastic of course, just to expose the ridiculousness of this whole exercise.

Let me put this succintly: what is your evidence that the wrongdoing is somehow specifically connected to the Polish Noticeboard? If you have no evidence, then I strongly urge you to remove this whole thread. Balcer 02:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and Irpen meant Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Errabee. Sorry for not been absolutely clear. I think the proposal to do negative campaigning openly (if doing at all) is reasonable, obviously it applies to the both sides Alex Bakharev 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sides? The RfA in question got 31 oppose votes. Are they predominantly from Poland? Balcer 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not predominantly. But many votes came from Polish corner of en-wiki (coincidence), being from users not exactly known for following RfA pages, (another coincidence) and there is lack of the onwiki communication that would explain such "fluctuation". --Irpen 02:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a list of users you think acted in bad faith, report them to an appropriate page or take this up on their talk pages. Using this noticeboard paints all users interested in Poland with a black brush. Do you really see no problem with that? Balcer 03:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The primary question here is not about the users who voted. It is about whoever chose to send out these messages aimed a opposing the RfA who acted... should I say "improperly"? I think it is acceptable to campaign for someone, yes. I think it is acceptable in exceptional cases to even campaign against someone, just do that openly. --Irpen 03:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all you say above. I just think that bringing these concerns here is highly inappropriate. Look, it is almost obvious that the person who did this is one of the people who voted "oppose". So, the reasonable thing to do would be to contact those people specifically and make your statement. The highly unreasonable thing is to make this statement here, effectively besmirching and wasting the time of all the users participating on this page. Balcer 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. How many members of this noticeboard took part in the voting? I count three based on list of members on the first page, but I will go easy on you and include "known Poles", which gives us five. Four of which voted oppose, one voted support (interesting, 20% cabal inefficiency? Neeed to work on that ;p). And those 4 votes snowballed 12% of the oppose vote. Huge... And the proof is that those four (five?) users apparently don't vote in RfA often and yet somewhow did it this time, right? Let me congratulate you on this research, could you present the statistical analysis (breakdown) of those user's activity in Wikipedia namespace, showing that they indeed rarely vote in RfA AND also show that they are exception (i.e. all other users who vote in RfA vote there much more often)? Also, please present correlations between voters in this RfA and membership on other projects / wiki-organizations, since I would like to see - due weight, you know - if cabals of any other kind may be responsible for snowballing this RfA one way or another. Finally, I can think of quite a few pages, in article and project space, that might have received attention from four or more 'Poles'; let me know if you need a list of such deviant behaviour before it is submited to Cabal Investigation Team. That said, please keep such stuff to cabal namespace; this noticeboard is not a place for it. PS. Alex, I never expected you to support such a bad faith witch hunt allegiation. PS2. meta:Poles are evil. And who said this was not real :) PS3. WP:AGF... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can run such "investigation" you are proposing. This would take time but doable. But are you sincere or you want me merely to spend time on this, just like you often tell me to find the diffs that you know are there? Can we find a simpler way to figure this out? Are you saying you are not aware of any email/IM/IRC campaign in question? My goal here is actually expressed in the top message. You used to post "problem articles", as you called them, in a special field until Balcer removed it. All I request is that if such campaigns are still being run, this is done openly. I am not even requesting their not being run... --Irpen 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. As for your invoking WP:AGF, I remember Geogre excellently putting it somewhere that AGF seems to be the most oft-cited and misused and poorly remembered but generously sprinkled argument in any dispute. I wonder how long ago you read this policy yourself. Do that.\! AGF is about edits (in the main space.) And secondly, AGF does not say "Be a fool." --Irpen 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. For months - if not years - you have been doing your best accusing members of this board and others of "canvassing" (to use your favourite phrase) and informing one another of various issues via wiki pages. Now you are saying you are ok with it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that doing it off-wiki is worse because it adds hypocrisy. The same improper campaign is then run behind the curtain of propriety. But let's just settle it since the question above is rather direct despite it is not clear from your post whether you noticed it. So, I repeat: Are you saying you are not aware of any email/IM/IRC campaign in question? --Irpen 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, and this has now become a direct one-on-one discussion between you and Piotrus, would you be kind enough to move it to one of your talk pages? Thanks in advance. Balcer 06:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying here is that you should apologize for the members of this noticeboard for you allegations. If you have something to ask me, there is my user talk page for that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general offense here, Piotrus, to apologize for. I did not implicate the whole community in any way and those not involved have no reason to be offended. I brought the actions of someone in this community to the light of the rest. Maybe it would help the gullible folks who allowed themselves to be led last time to think better when (or if) such is repeated. As for having something to ask you, I asked twice already. I am not going to be asking for the third time. --Irpen 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, if I came to your neighbourhood and put up a big billboard sign saying: "A dirty rotten bastard lives here" with no indication or proof of who that might be, and then defended my action by saying "but of course I did not want to offend the whole neighbourhood, only that one rotten bastard who shall remain nameless", how believable would I be? Balcer 15:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject whose RfA is being discussed here, I am sorry to see that it has become another source of incident between Russian-related and Poland-related editors. I can understand Irpen's feelings, because I had noticed it as well. It is not the number that counts, but it was the timing that was a little conspicuous. Piotrus was the first from this board to oppose, on 3 May 05:59; Darwinek followed on 16:52, Halibutt 19:04, Lysy 20:02, Appleseed the next day on 2:45 and LUCPOL on 16:35. 5 days of silence, and suddenly 6 entries in a day and a half. Knowing Piotrus' preference for contacting people in person (which he himself has admitted above), this raised my eyebrows a little, but I never ever thought about protesting against it, as I trust each and everyone would make their own decision, and if that decision is negative for me, than so be it and they are absolutely free to do so.

Let me summarize by saying that I didn't care if Piotrus was sending off-wiki messages or not; if he did it would have been more gentlemanlike to do it on on-wiki, but I'm still okay with it.

Now as the subject of this discussion, I hope that the fact I don't mind if there has been off-wiki contacts about my RfA or not, will go a long way towards ending this issue. I certainly hold absolutely no grudge against the users of this noticeboard, whether they voted oppose or support (or didn't vote at all). Errabee 11:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your mature response goes a long way to making me reconsider my vote down the line when you reapply for adminship. As for pattern voting, I wonder why for example 9+ editors known to me from Russian/Ukrainian noticeboards voted from 2 to 3 May, or what attracted Lithuanian wikproject users such as M.K. (first second vote in RfA ever) or Dr. Dan (second). But I am not looking for any cabals, nor do I care what made them come there and vote: the vote is public and advertising for RfA is something I am pretty sure is within the rules (I saw it before and I don't mind it at all). The bigger campaign somebody can create - the better for him (her). And the same holds for opposition (it would be grossly unfair to allow only positive campaigning). Finally, with all this cabal stuff, a note to consider: people do edits following user contributions. I found your RfA following contribs of a user I know, and I would expect several people follow my edits and would thus follow my edits, too. Good luck next time, and once you address the issue I mentiond and Lysy (who supported you nonetheless... linked to), I think you may expect us to support you next time (I, for example, agree with your image stance :).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to you Prokonsul Piotrus, immediately remove such misinformation such as users such as M.K. (first vote in RfA ever) which you spreading about me. Second, the contributor's conducts , which I supported, to me is familiar and proclamation publicly available. M.K. 12:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Your second vote since, first since last August... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I am not a member of the Lithuanian Wiki Project, athough all of its members are, I'm sure, delighted that you (and Halibutt) are two of its members. And I'm happy that you are keeping tabs on me and how I vote. This is very comforting. Since you are "an administrator open for recall", you'll be happy to know I'll be involved to help if you should offer yourself up for scrutiny and a new vote. Dr. Dan 23:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, why don't you just say that you sent out these out of sight messages? Or that you did not. The question was asked above enough times already and your persistent not responding goes a long way towards the answer. Also, I can't believe that the diff Lysy linked to was his. Lysy does not spend enough time on WP to dig out the links from the remote past. Nor was he actively following the arbitration pages in the past...

To answer your question on what brought many of those supporters, firstly the announcement was made quite openly at the Russian board similarly to how the announcement of your ArbCom was made here not so long ago (and again I did not protest.) And as I said, campaigning to help someone is not the same as a campaign to derail someone, especially conducted out of sight.

It does not take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that someone sent out a bunch of messages with "Take a look at this RfA! This is the same candidate who made [diff this] post." Whoever sent out these messages with the link to Errabee's long time ago statement at the obscure (and rejected) ArbCom (and done so secretly) displayed a text-book example of ungentlemanly conduct, particularly when the author of the messages included the peculiar Lucpol into his subscription list. --Irpen 21:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this was all about Piotrus all along (why am I not suprised). In that case, why did you not post your concerns on User talk:Piotrus, instead of polluting this important talk page? What does Poland have to do with the beef that you have against Piotrus?

Or is this all about asking Piotrus leading questions on a highly visible page. Given your conduct, I do not believe you are entitled to any kind of an answer.

Just out of curiosity, could you please cite the Wikipedia guideline which defines what ungentlemanly conduct is? Surely, if you are hounding a respected user on highly visible public boards, there is some important Wikipedia rule that he has broken and which you can cite! If not, then what you are doing is simply unconscionable. Balcer 21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, if I had been sure that "this is all about Piotrus all along" as you put it, I would not have taken it here indeed, but to his talk, as you suggest, or to his ongoing arbitration. However, taking it directly at one of the "Piotrus-only" related pages requires a more solid proof that it was Piotrus indeed. The proof is solid that someone has done it (as such "fluctuation" being without a direct reason is unconscionable).

As for your question on codifying the definition of the ungentlemanly conduct in the Wikipedia policy, I am afraid it is impossible and this is why it is not and will never be codified similarly to how the issues of ethics are not codified in any legal way in RL. People just know ethics (or they don't.)

Piotrus carefully avoided answering the question. It is up to users to draw the conclusions from, the facts presented and, perhaps, from this avoidance. As I said, I am not 100% sure and just a word here from whoever done it could clear this up to everyone's relief. --Irpen 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowballing RfA (section break)

I find this thread to be highly inappropriate on a Polish community bulletin board. It does Errabee a disservice even though he's no stranger to making accusations of votestacking toward editors of other nationalities [33]. I cannot hold it against Errabee that in his view Katyn massacre is "Low" on a Russian importance scale [34] and "High" on a Polish importance scale, since Errabee isn't Polish, but I don't like the thought that I might belong to "those groups … fighting nationalist POV" (to put it in his own words [35]). I also resent the attempts at laying guilt by association on any of the members of this Portal by his supporters. Choices we make individually during discussions are neither greater nor less valuable because of it. --Poeticbent  talk  19:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent, with regards to votestacking: I assumed good faith first and simply mentioned he contacted 16 individual users with the danger of unbalancing the discussion. Only after another editor hinted at it, and the original editor continued contacting more individual users, I said it was close to votestacking, for which a case could certainly be made, since 19 of those 23 were of Turkish origin, which seems pretty unbalanced to me.

As for the Katyn massacre, let me make a parallel. I'm from the Netherlands, and the bombing of Rotterdam is still considered to be a very important event, as it was the event that caused us to surrender to Nazi Germany and thus marked the start of a 5-year occupation, that has caused deaths in almost all families. I lost my grandfather in the war. The results for Rotterdam last until today, as it is the only city in the Netherlands without a historic center. Nevertheless, I would still mark it as Low-importance for the Germany project, as the Netherlands were only occupied to provide a platform for the invasion of England. Now I understand that the Katyn massacre is very important for Poland, as the bombing of Rotterdam is to the Netherlands. But the Katyn massacre, how tragic it may be, is not that important for Russia, just as the bombing of Rotterdam isn't important to Germany. Errabee 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent, It is not my goal here to do any service (or disservice) to Errabee who can do very well without my services. I affirm the Wikipedians' right to make individual choices. I find alarming not the fact that people made the (tendentiously) informed choices but someone's campaigning to derail an RfA secretly. Anyway, hopefully, enough is said indeed for people to draw sopme conclusions from this not so pleasant incident. --Irpen 21:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Poeticbent, regarding your belief that this discussion does not belong on a Polish community bulletin board, I have to disagree. There's nothing "holy" about this talk page, it's not the Ark of the Covenant, and all that has been stated here is something to think about. This is the purpose of the talk pages on WP (to iron out differences) and they are not the same as the project pages. Dr. Dan 03:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that interested in the past but in the future. There is a slim chance that seven prominent Polish editors independently became suddenly interested in an obscure RfA of a user who almost never edited Poland-related articles but a few weeks ago once said something negative about nationalism. We can assume AGF and find it pure coincidence. Anyway nobody was persecuted for off-wiki communications. Now lets assume that in a couple of months a Polish editor who never edited Russia-related articles but once said something negative about say Russian nationalism would suddenly get a number of Russian related oppose !votes. Then... It is contra-productive and plainly looks ugly. We can all assume AGF and do nothing we can also have some agreement and eliminate or reduce the problem. I am not sure I fully understand what Irpen is proposing but if it is workable I would rather discuss the solution then try to stonewall the problem. Alex Bakharev 12:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why seven editors, maybe could you list them. I see six that would qualify, and one of them voted in favour. 106 vote were cast in total, so the impact of these few votes was negligible.

Seriously, given that I am a participant of this board, should I from now on avoid all voting in RfA, or anxiously check before and after I vote whether other "Poles" voted, and if they have, write a detailed confession to justify the existence of any correlations that might result? Or maybe I should avoid voting if I see that even one "Pole" has already voted, as two "Poles" would already be suspicious. What is an acceptable number of "Poles" that can vote in anything before a detailed justfication must be provided for the "strange" correlation? Who decides which correlation is supicious and which one is not? I don't like where this is going. It looks more and more like an attempt to discourage a category of people from participating in voting altogether. Balcer 12:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to volunteer logs of all your IRC/IMs/emails communications for review, as well as to be on the safe side, start recording yourself 24h/7 so it can be proven beyond doubt you were not "canvassing" in offline.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Alex, it is amusing that instead of dealing with the "editor who once said something ugly" you and Irpen are trying to silence editors that were offended. I have seen this with Irpen in the past and got used to it, but again I am disappointed seeing you following his suit. I can only hope that Errabee will discard such "defense", finally apologize for a comment he should have apologized back then in the first place and put this matter to rest (such an apology during RfA would have turned my vote to support, for example). But if you keep on accusing few members of this board as well as some others of cabalism here, don't expect to win any points. As far as I am concerned, this is EOT and I strongly recommend to all editors not to waste time on this off-topic thread here (and remember WP:DFTT (no, that doesn't mean you, Alex, everyone is entitled to a mistake every now and often)).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DFTT? Is this a personal attack? Please advise since you are an expert on those! But seriously, this is not about "defense of Errabee" who does not need any. This is about the revolting campaign to derail an RfA organized by someone along the secretive channels. Offended by his many months ago remark were not editors, otherwise they would have remembered such "offense". It was one editor who sent out these alerts with an obscure link thus inciting other users to oppose by invoking their national sensitivities.

BTW, Piotrus, did not you advocate publishing IRC logs? I am looking forward towards you publishing your part of the #en-admins, particularly on what the heck brought the channel's 24 hr regular David Gerard, who I never met before, to bash me at your Arbcom on the very next day after your joining the channel. You see, DG and myself have no common area to interact as I am spending time editing Wikipedia and he spends time chatting at IRC. Is it a coincidence that after your joining the IRC DG suddenly finds an obscure edit at the talk of the user who I advise to avoid revert warring with you? Also, derailing Errabee's RfA was widely discussed at the same channel as his run challenged the unencyclopedic position towards the fairuse that prevails among the channel's regulars. There may or may not be a direct cause and effect connection between the IRC discussion at the channel of Errabee's bid over the copyright issues and the alerting of several of the regulars of this board whose users don't share the IRC's copyright extremism. The users of this board are much more likely to take close to heart an obscure statement made many months ago about Polish nationalism in English Wikipedia. Someone provided them the and have done so secretly. This is what worries me most here. --Irpen 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Vilnius "Wilno" is qualified as a historical name. It's a contemporary name in a language of a considerable minority. Sejny contains Lithuanian name, so by analogy Vilnius should contain Wilno.Xx236 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Do raise it either at Talk:Vilnius or at WP:NCGN, however please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution for some background: there are some editors very much opposed to any compromise and inclusion of the word Wilno in Vilnius (and honestly, I have spend hours trying to convince them, and I am not sure if I want to waste my time on this issue again).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it alone. Sure, a concerted action by Polish editors could force that name in there, but what would be the point? It will be so much more satisfying when in a few years the Lithuanian editors put it in there on their own initiative (in line with the trend of cities celebrating their multi-ethnic heritage, rather than glorifing the boring homogeneity exalted by obsolete nationalism). Balcer 18:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days Balcer... one of these days...bang!, zoom! articles celebrating multiculturalism such as Lithuanian annexion of Wilno of 1991 straight to the DYK.

Well said.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding. What will even be more satisfying is when this group here who tell us the the German speaking residents of Pomerania and Silesia were actually Poles, repatriated after WWI, acknowledge that a large component of the Polish speaking (and actually many trilingual speakers of the region, since many spoke fluent Russian too) inhabitants of the "Wilno" region from the same period, were Lithuanians. The great Lithuanian redeemer of Polish independence, Pilsudski, realized this fact when he issued his Proclamation to the inhabitants of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania bilingually, after he tried to reunite the two nations again. Instead of it being irksome and denying it, you should pay homage to two of the greatest "Polish" leaders Jogaila and Pilsudski, and their heritage, and their contributions to Poland's positive history. Let's face it, up to now, after their contributions were supplanted by their succesors, the Vasas and the Rydz-Smiglys, there's not a lot of bragging that can be done. Think about it the next time you look at a statue of one of those two great Lithuanian statesmen that brought great honor to Poland's history. Dr. Dan 04:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I proposed that the naming issue be left to the Lithuanians, and you explode with all this vitriol. What gives? Are you secretly worried that my prediction will come true in the near future, and you will be left in an embittered minority even among your fellow Lithuanians? Balcer 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Balcer, I'm not even secretly worried that a "a concerted action by your group could force the name (how interesting) in there". When I explode as you call it, it usually follows the hypocritical biased remarks that often emenate from this group of my friends. Besides what part of my "vitriol" struck you as being untrue? Hmm? Dr. Dan 12:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth that's told with bad intent Beats all the Lies you can invent. William Blake. Balcer 13:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear, that you're talking about "obsolete nationalism" and "glorifing the boring homogeneity". I would be even more glad, if you would accept concept of true "multicultural" city. Although as for now i can see only one sided nationalism, as historical Lithuanian capital in multiple articles is said to be Polish city (neverminding the fact, that no one form Crown could get a state "job" in GDL, could not buy even a square centimeter of a land (up until final partition of our commonwealth), and that as Poles (those, who began to refer to themselves as Poles) have grown in numbers in this city, the main majority of inhabitants were Jews, that did call themselves Litvaks, who had great deal of tensions with Poles) "that has never been called Vilnius", and also not accepting proven facts that whole region of Vilnius was Lithuanian for centuries (and Polonised to notable extent only in the 19-th century, or rather second half of 19-th century - this is an object of discussion by historians). I do not want to go through all the involved nations (be it Russian or Poles) efforts of de-lithuanisation of this region, although it simply angers me when someone begins to speak about "multiculturalism" for the sake of manipulation. I do talk about research I've read, and most of what I've read is Polish research - Juliusz Bardach as an example.

For those who would be eager to accuse me trying in some way to Lithuanise (term invented by Halibutt on the fly by the kind suggestion by Piotrus) nowadays Poles of this region - trust me, I don't. Although I do have my opinion on the methods of agelong Polonisation (and especially 19th and 20th century doings) - and I do not find nothing glorious, nothing to be proud of or even not a sign of "multiculturalism" in it.--Lokyz 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is as flawed as your declaration that Lithuanization was invented by Halibutt. Feel free to nominate that article for WP:AFD if you think it's OR, until than, please keep your speculations of what ulterior motives certain editors have ot yourself.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right! Too bad you didn't pipe up when Balcer told us what you could all Force the "Wilno" issue on English Wikipedia, and tell us how "flawed" that declaration was. But then again you never mediated those kind of remarks when thay came from the likes of Molobo either. Neither as an administrator nor as a contributor to WP. William Blake my foot! Sorry, no bad intent on my part, just the facts. Why don't you mull them over before you try to Force any more of your bias on English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. I clearly indicated that any such forcing here would be a bad idea. Saying something is possible is not saying something is good or advisable. Of course in general let me asssure you, that I do not find such forcing of POV good in any circumstances. Still, as we all know, it happens quite often, since when about five established editors set their minds on some change and are willing to fight revert wars over the subject, they are very difficult to stop. I think your tactics here are well illustrated by another quote:

If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.Cardinal Richelieu. Balcer 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that the weird Lithuanization term is indeed a neologism has been shown at the article's talk as most of the books where the term is found refer to the software and keyboard issues. The article at the onset was an ORish essay as the main period of the "Lithuanization" according to the author was quite the opposite, so it had to be redone. After that, most of the article correctly describes the period where no, so called, "Lithuanization" took place. It describes it correctly but having it in the article makes no sense anyway. I think AfD would be optimal, but unfortunately it won't pass since the topic "looks" scientific to the casual clueless onlooker. At least it makes nonsense claims no more, which is a step froward. --Irpen 01:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 19th Century Polonization of ethnic Lithuanians in Vilnius was very cruel. The Polish government controlled the action, the Polish secret police distributed Polish books in kindergardens for Lithuanian children. The Poles deported Lithuanian activists to Pacanów. The Polish army fought Lithuanian guerilla. Xx236 10:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was thinking more about realities rather than fantasies. Like the reneging on the treaty of October 1920, signed between Poland and Lithuania, and the "staging of the mutiny" by Zeligowski. I was also thinking of another moment you can be proud of, the Polish Ultimatum to Lithuania of 1938, which in essence said: "You've got twenty-four hours to do as we say, or else". I think even Hitler gave Dr. Hacha, a little more time. Dr. Dan 13:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't you but Lokyz: "agelong Polonisation (and especially 19th and 20th century doings)". 1920-1939 wasn't in the 19th century, it was 19 years of the 20th. We can compare that period with 16 years of Lithuanian rules, sometimes problematic ones. BTW - was the situation of Poles in Lithuania 1920-1939 much better than the one of Lithuanians in Poland? If you have any proves, write about this subject. Is there any article about Poles in Lithuania here? Did they exists?

The Ultimatum. Wow! Wow! Wow! How cruel it was to allow mixed families to travel legally. BTW - what was the connection between the Ultimatum and Polonization? Name one Lithuanian Polonized as the result of it. I would rather expect it made many Lithuanian angry. as far as I know part of the Lithuanian opposition supported the Ultimatum. Xx236 07:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any article about Poles in Lithuania here? Yes, see Polish minority in Lithuania.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains one phrase about Poles in Lithuania 1920-1939 "interwar period, in independent Lithuania, the census of 1923 showed that Poles constitued 65,600 of Lithuania inhabitants (3.2% of total population)."Xx236 07:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Wow! Wow?, so you consider the Ultimatum kind of like a public relations campaign for Orbis? And the signing and breaking of treaties, also something that other nations should emulate? Whereas you were being flippant and trite about the 19th century, my examples were to help you understand why relations soured between two nations that earlier had a shared history on a more positive plane, in the 20th century. And regarding Godwin's Law I think that Mike Godwin is entitled to his opinion and that I'm entitled to mine. The "flaw" with the "law" is that Godwin doesn't want to invoke Hitler (even when the association at hand is typically Hitlerian-like) because it trivializes what he was about or did. Dr. Dan's Law says, When you behave like Hitler, you can be compared to Hitler! Dr. Dan 13:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for invoking Godwin's Law, but this board is not a forum for your personal attacks. Next time you will be reverted. Appleseed (Talk) 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which personal attack, or attacks, Appleseed? Re-read the whole thread again. And thank you for invoking the perception that the non-existant "Cabal" is a reality by your participation. Right now we are only missing a few other voices with imaginations like yours. Plus we have William Blake and Cardinal Richelieu backing you up against me. If they weren't dead, or couldn't care less about the matter, they could help you Force the Lithuanian editors to accept "Wilno" over Vilnius, and the other non-Polish readers and contributors to English Wikipedia as well. Dr. Dan 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the part where you wrote about moments to be proud of? Are you indicting the members of this board over a historical event from long ago? As for your cabal comment, please familiarize yourself with the concept of a public board. Appleseed (Talk) 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appleseed, I stand by everything that I have stated in this discussion. I'd be yawning before I would even dream of indicting anyone here from this public board. And as for your misplaced indignation about my comments here regarding this thread, and your concept of what a a public board is all about. I wish you would have chimed in when this discussion was begun by Xx236, and furthered by P.P. and Balcer on May 7, 2007, under "Wilno". I suggest you re-read those comments. If you lack time or the interest to do so, let me give you a short refresher. These were choice comments that were made on your public board. Or weren't they? Remarks in context of such negative bias like Good point! (what was good about it) Well said! (what was well said about it) A conncerted action by Polish editors could force the name in there... (I'm sorry, but that strikes me as something really sad). I am hoping that some new and fresh Polish face can come into this melée and tell you all, "Really now, enough is enough. Grow up"! Dr. Dan 05:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment carefully. I was speaking out against any action by Polish editors to force the name in there. I was trying to prevent that from happening, for crying out loud. How can you possibly misuderstand this? Balcer 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of tens of this discassions is the problem of human rights. Some people believe that myths are more important than real people, so they prize expulsions as acts historical justice. Xx236 07:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

????? Dr. Dan 12:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did he use such name, eg. in Latin tetxts? Lithuanian Wikipedia claims he was lt:Jurgis Radvila. Did he ever use such name? Xx236 10:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Wiki is feel to use whatever they think it's appoppriate on their end, per their 'Use Lithuanian' guidelines and such. I am more worried about whether we should remove cardinal 'middle name' from all cardinals (Stefan Cardinal Wyszyński, etc.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the appropriate designation for a Cardinal In English. First name, "Cardinal", last name. Dr. Dan 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is some sort of a standard. I also found this strange when Ukrainian Lubomyr Cardinal Husar was renamed as such. IIRC, somewhere there is a discussion at some project, either names, or Catholicism, etc. --Irpen 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Cardinals Olessi 04:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; as far as I can tell the title should not have that 'cardinal' prefix then? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I prefer to do without the cardinal title. However, including it for this article might make sense to disambiguate from Jerzy Radziwiłł. Olessi 17:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer dates, but in that case it is indeed a minor issue, good point.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a Polish nominee in Portal:Arts/Featured picture/Vote for the feaured image in the Arts Portal for July. Go to the Arts Portal and then to Nominations to vote--Orestek 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please see here and comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to add a few sentences to the section concerning religion:

According to the most recent research conducted by CBOS, only 55% of Polish people declare to follow the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, while the 39% declare to believe "in their own way". 6% declare not to be religious at all.

I suppose it is quite important, because once a week I have to listen how religious we - Poles - are. Here is the direct link to the exemplary article on the subject: http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1535731,11,item.html

Feel free to edit Religion in Poland article... - Darwinek 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Polska_Flaga_Berlin.jpg has been given an unsourced image template and has also been removed from a number of articles. It seems strange to me that someone needs a source for this seeing as it was probably taken by a soldier in Berlin. Regardless I think it is still covered under its original license. Can someone please investigate so we don't lose this important image? Thank you. JRWalko 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another copyright paranoia strike team. See User_talk:Betacommand#Bot_problem.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further: Template talk:PolandGov, Template:MFA-PL. Rationale needs to be added to all those images. Also it would be EXTREMLY helpful if somebody could contact MSZ and convince them that dropping 'non-commercial' tag is in their best interest.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular photo bears the logo of the "Archiwum Dokumentacji Mechanicznej" which is part of the government archives. Doesn't that inherently make it a public domain? BTW, the photo was removed once again. :-) JRWalko 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one would have to check the copyright status fo the "Archiwum...", even if it is governmental it doesn't necessarily make it PD, unfortunatly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if someone could check out this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesia_national_football_team

It seems totally weird to me, as there is no national team of Silesia, no coach of it and no independent Silesian Football Association. Why is the author providing wrong info? I assume this gentleman is keen on Silesian stuff, but please, this is too much Tymek 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek, jest co najmniej kilkanaście nieoficjalnych (non-official) reprezentacji, których nie różnią się od reprezentacji Śląska. Są to reprezentacje nie zrzeszone z UEFA/FIFA i grają tylko sporadycznie i tylko nieoficjalnie. To, że ty zdziwiłeś się że coś takiego istnieje to nic nie znaczy i nie upoważnia cię do atakowania autora artykułu. Odrębność Śląska na prawie każdym poziomie życia często zaskakuje Polaków, myślących że Śląsk to normalna (sic!) "polska" kraina, lecz to nie upoważnia nikogo do takich zachowań. W artykule pisze prawda, z artykułu wynika tylko tyle, że: Reprezentacja Śląska istnieje, Śląski Związek Piłki Nożnej zajmuje się powoływaniem składu reprezentacji, Reprezentacja Śląska nie rozgrywa oficjalnych! meczy międzynarodowych, nie jest zrzeszona w FIFA. W artykule nie ma żadnej błędnej lub kłamliwej informacji. LUCPOL 12:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. User:LUCPOL has just single-handedly created a Silesian National Football Team (which in reality is a regional football team with no international pretensions, though it may play an informal game against some national team about once per decade, as described in Polish Wikipedia pl:Reprezentacja Śląska w piłce nożnej). All I can say is, after this stunt I will carefully watch his edits. Balcer 04:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented some corrections to bring at least the lead in line with the extensive article in Polish Wikipedia. The article needs more work. Probably a full translation from the Polish Wikipedia article about this important and interesting regional team would be in order. Balcer 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I moved the article to Silesia football team (NPOV translation of Reprezentacja Śląska w piłce nożnej), where it properly belongs . Balcer 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odnośnie zmiany nazwy, poprzednia nazwa (Silesia national football team) była według standardów (również na wikipedii). Są nieoficjalne reprezentacje np. w Hiszpanii np. Catalonia national football team etc. i pisze tam słowo "national", to samo dotyczy innych nieoficjalnych reprezentacji różnych krain czy regionów. Zatem uważam, że User:Balcer źle postąpił przenosząc artykuł pod swoją nazwę i to jeszcze bez żadnej dyskusji z autorem artykułu. LUCPOL 13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one uses Śląska reprezentacja narodowa, which is what Silesia national football team would mean. Śląska reprezentacja means Silesia football team (or Silesian football team). Clear? Balcer 13:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tutaj kłania się język polski: nie ma artykułu Polska reprezentacja narodowa jest tylko pl:Reprezentacja Polski w piłce nożnej. Według twojego twierdzenia powinniśmy artykuł Poland national football team przenieść do Poland football team. To jest wystarczający powód że się mylisz. Liczą się standardy, Szkocja czy Katalonia lub inne regiony mają "narodowe" reprezentacje choć nie są państwami!!!. Tak samo Śląsk. Jasne? LUCPOL 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeśli zamierzasz usunąć słowo "national" z nazwy "Silesian national football team" to usunę słowa "national" z innych reprezentacji "non-official" różnych regionów, zostawię tylko słowo "national" w reprezentacjach państw. Twój wybór. LUCPOL 13:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add that Catalonia and Catalonians have different status than Silesia and Silesians. Silesian team was rather something like Grearter Polands Team that play match few years ago (it was team coposed of players of Lech Poznań, Amica Wronki and Dyskobolia Grodzisk Wlkp.) Radomil talk 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic LUCPOL, if tomorrow Lublin Voivodeship decides to set up an informal football team made up of players from clubs on its territory, are we going to call it Lublin National Football Team? That would be ridiculous, and so is Silesian national football team at this point. Balcer 13:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Silesians are ethnic group (+ 0.2 million people in 2002 year officially to declare for nation/nationality!!!) - this is not peoples from Lublin!?! If you do not see difference at all this about what you discuss?
2. Silesia is region (till 1945 year he had wide autonomy), tries at present to regain autonomy and is in European Free Alliance.
3. On Silesia is National identity.
4. Silesia plays also with other country (Poland, China, Tanzania etc). LUCPOL 14:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lucpol

First of all, use English, if you want to speak Polish, go to the Polish Wikipedia.

Now, I have no doubt that some Silesians regard themselves a separate ethnic group and surely - feel free to write about Silesian identity or culture. But please do not mix apples and oranges. You are providing wrong info and you are misleading Wikipedia users from all over the world. There is no national Silesian team, it exists only in your head. This team now and then plays some charity games just like e.g. the team of firefighters from neighboring villages. Silesian autonomy or identity is a thing that is completely different and has nothing to do with a non-existent football team.

On Wednesday July 14, 1937 the combined team of Warsaw played an international friendly with Kispest Budapest, winning 6-3. Using your logic - should I start an article about Warsaw National Football Team?

Anyway this article should be rewritten, if it should ever exist and you should be closely watched by administrators. I guess Piotrus or Darwinek should help solve this problem Tymek 14:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek: nie zawsze mam możliwość pisania po angielsku (to dla mnie dużo pracy ze słownikiem), ale wyrażam zgodę na tłumaczenie moich postów. Wracając do sprawy: jeśli np. powstanie reprezentacja Mazowsza a sami mazowszanie będą uważani w Polsce za grupę etniczną a sami mazowszanie uważali się będą za osobny naród, będą utożsamiali się ze swoim regionem i w dodatku ich reprezentacja będzie grała mecze w państwami!!! to wtedy co innego - można nawet utworzyć osobny artykuł. W chwili obecnej Śląsk to nie Mazowsze (pomiędzy nimi jest przepaść), na Śląsku jest inna w stosunku do Polski historia, kultura, ludność, język i obyczaje. To jest jedyny region w którym mieszkańcy utożsamiają się ze swoim regionem. Dlaczego to piszę? Bo Katalonia lub inne (Katalonię podałem jako pierwszy przykład z brzegu, może być również inny przykład) ma oznaczenie "national", a ze Śląska usuwacie. Czy Katalonia (lub inne!!!!!! przykłady regionów) jest państwem? Nie! Czy Śląsk jest państwem? Nie. Oba są regionami, mającymi swoje piłkarskie reprezentacje, oboje grają nieoficjalne mecze i nie są zrzeszone w FIFA. Więc dlaczego usuwacie tylko!!! te słowo ze Śląskiej Reprezentacji? Czy wam, jako Polakom to nie jest na rękę? Jeśli tak, to tu jest wikipedia, mi na rękę nie jest wiele rzeczy ale nie przychodze na wiki i ich nie usuwam. Już pisałem wyżej - jeśli zostanie usunięte słowo "national" ze Śląska to usunę je również z innych regionów (nie państw). Bo np. Katalonia (lub inne co mają reprezentacje "non-official") nie jest państwem tak samo jak Śląsk. Słowo honoru, że nie pisałbym tu gdyby z Katalonii i innych regionów też usuneliście by te słowo, ale w chwili obecnej to tylko atak na tę jedną reprezentację i na dodatek jest to atak jedynych osób na świecie, których mają coś do Śląska i Ślązaków... a mianowice Polacy (mylę się?). Druga sprawa: Reprezentacja Śląska grała mecze z reprezentacjami państwowymi!!! Te wszystkie argumenty teraz razem dodajcie do siebie. LUCPOL 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUCPOL, before you do anything, please read WP:Point. Also, remember that on Wikipedia we do not describe the world as we think it should be, but as it actually is. You have reasonable arguments why there should be a Silesia national team. This does not change the fact that there isn't one.

Since it is unlikely we will change your mind, let's make things more formal. You know that everything in Wikipedia needs to be backed up with citations if requested, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Since you insist on using Silesia national football team, please provide verifiable references that would support the use of that term. Ideally it would be good to see English language publications that use precisely that wording. If you cannot find them, we cannot use that title, as simple as that.

For anyone interested, there is more discussion under Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 16. Balcer 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myślę, że sprawą powinien zająć się jakiś "nie-Polak" i "nie-Ślązak". Ślązacy czują odrębność od Polski, Polacy za każdym razem próbują to zniwelować. Jeśli Polacy i Ślązacy nie potrafią się dogadać to niech wypowiadają się przedstawiciele innych (neutralnych) narodów. LUCPOL 16:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drogi Lucpolu. Nie potrafie zrozumiec w jaki sposob doszedles do dziwacznego wniosku, ze nie lubimy Slazakow, mam rodzine w Gliwicach i bardzo ten region Polski lubie. Chociaz w sumie jak sobie cos wmowisz to juz taki obraz w Twej glowie pozostaje. Wracajac do tematu - Twoja imaginacja nie powinna byc przedmiotem encyklopedycznych artykulow. Ludzie z calego swiata to czytaja i dochodza do blednych wnioskow. Nie ma czegos takiego jak slaska druzyna narodowa niezaleznie od tego czy zyczysz to sobie, czy tez nie. W latach 30., 50. oraz 60. bardzo popularne byly "miedzypanstwowe" mecze np Warszawa - Libia czy Krakow - Pekin. Wyciaganie z tego faktu daleko idacych wnioskow jest sporym naduzyciem. Slaska tozsamosc to jedno, a nieistniejaca druzyna "narodowa" to drugie i tematy te nie maja nic wspolnego ze soba.

Wiecej po polsku nie bede pisal, a jezeli masz klopoty z jezykiem angielskim to proponuje dac sobie spokoj z dzialalnoscia tutaj, szczegolnie ze niektore podawane przez Ciebie informacje sa watpliwej jakosci i wprowadzaja w blad uzytkownikow. Pozdrawiam i przepraszam za ostatni wniosek ale tak niestety jest Tymek 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nie pisałem, że Polacy nie lubią Ślązaków tylko że Polacy zawsze próbują negować "śląskość" czy "odrębność" Śląska. To jest różnica, ja piszę tak a ty odpowiadasz na coś czego nie napisałem (dziwne trochę, czyż nie?). Wracając do tematu, zobacz sobie to: Occitania national football team. I jeszcze negujesz Silesia "national" football team? To nie jest jedyny przykład, tego typu reprezentacji na en.wikipedii jest więcej. Wiem o co ci chodzi, lecz zauważ że jest wiele (co najmniej kilkanaście) takich reprezentacji jak Reprezentacja Śląska. Inne takie reprezentacje też są nieformalnymi!, niezrzeszonymi w FIFA, obejmującymi region (nie państwo) reprezentacjami grającymi tylko co jakiś czas. Już rozumiesz co chcę ci przekazać? Nazwa na en.wikipedii jest zgodna z wszelkimi innymi nazwami podobnych reprezentacji. Jeśli inne, liche reprezentacje typu Occitania national football team mają określenie "national" to również Reprezentacja Śląska ma te określenie. Jestem w stanie od razu zgodzić się na usunięcie określenia "national" z Reprezentacji Śląska, jeśli inne reprezentacje tego samego pokroju też będą miały usunięte te określenie. Tutaj napisałem tylko fakty, proszę - postaraj się zrozumieć co teraz napisałem. Teraz nie piszę argumentów "za" tym określeniem ("national") w reprezentacji Śląska, lecz piszę tu o tym że nie może być tak, że wszystkie inne reprezentacje tego pokroju są jako "national" a tylko Reprezentacja Śląska jest atakowana. Potrafiliście zmienić nazwę Silesia national football team na Silesia football team, zmieńcie więc nazwy pozostałych tego typu reprezentacji. Jeśli to nie zrobicie to nie zostanie zmieniona również w Silesia national football team, jeśli zmienicie również inne w ramach tej samej waszej zasady to natychmiast zakończę dyskusję utrzymując jedyny kompromis jaki jest w tej sprawie. Wybór zależy do was. I zastanówcie się, bowiem to są argumenty nie do przebicia. PS. Tymek, nie prosiłem Cię abyś tu pisał mi po polsku (po polsku możesz pisać bez ograniczeń na mojej dyskusji użytkownika), tutaj możesz śmiało pisać po angielsku (czytam lepiej niż piszę w języku angielskim). Jeśli chcesz to możesz tłumaczyć moje posty z tej strony. Mi tam wszystko jedno. LUCPOL 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Hence it contains a lot of inaccuracies and questionable content, especially on subjects as obscure as the Occitania national football team. From this it follows that the rule: other articles say A, hence this one must say A, would obviously lead to uncontrolled proliferation of bad content. Besides, it would amount to Wikipedia becoming a reference for itself, which is clearly not allowed.

This is why we have clear policies and guidlines, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR. So, LUCPOL, instead of basing your case on other obscure and inaccurate articles, could you please cite some English language references which show that the term Silesia National Football team actually exists in English and is used? Balcer 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in Occitania football team whether it exists or not and citing this dubious source is not relevant. There is not such thing as Silesian team and the creation of this article has mislead some people who accidentally wandered there and who have no knowledge about this subject. If you want to waste your time and remove the adjective "national" from such articles as Occitania team, please do it. This is not my problem, all I care about is the creation of a true image of Poland in the English-language Wikipedia. Tymek 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer: po pierwsze - nie jest wymagane podawanie źródeł w języku angielskim. Po drugie - ja nie opierałem się na "niedokładnych" artykułach (chodzi o Occitania national football team), lecz na wszystkich artykułach. Wszystkie artykuły na en.wikipedii o reprezentacjach państw i regionów! (niezależnie jakich) są napisane jako "nazwa danego państwa lub regionu national football team". Ja nie zrobiłem nic innego jak podałem tytuł zgodny w 100%!!! z en.wikipedią, podobnie jak są zapisane wszystkie! inne reprezentacje "non-official" różnych regionów. Czy zatem zrobiłem coś źle? Czy powinno się starać usunąć określenie "national" tylko z Reprezentacji Śląska? Nie! Mój angielski jest słaby, proszę powyższe osoby o zgłoszenie/rozpoczęcie tematu "takich" reprezentacji gdzieś w ogólnej kawiarence. Jeśli osoby z różnych części świata opowiedzą się za usunięciem słowa "national" z takich reprezentacji to zostaną one usunięte przez adminów i sprawa zakończona. W chwili obecnej kilku Polaków chce zrobić na całej en.wikipedii wyjątek od reguły zamiast przedyskutować cały problem "takich" reprezentacji z innymi wikipedystami innych neutralnych narodowości. LUCPOL 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Madeira regional football team, Azores regional football team, Canary Islands regional football team. From this I would have no objection to Silesia regional football team. We do not have to use the word "national". There is no Wikipedia policy to that effect. Balcer 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole controversy is discussed extensively at Talk:List of men's national football (soccer) teams. In a nutshell, many people seem opposed to the proliferation of "national" teams on Wikipedia (Bornholm national football team strikes me as particularly funny). There is no reason why we must contribute to this disaster. Balcer 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe. Co do linku do dyskusji to ok, co do linków do tych 3 regionalnych reprezentacji to trochę śmieszne, bowiem kilkadziesiąt dni temu te artykuły poprzenosił pod nową nazwę jeden użytkownik - User:Mistico, który nawet nie dyskutował w podanej przez ciebie dyskusji. Innymi słowy - to była jego samowola. I co ciekawe, on to robił tylko w portugalskich (czy hiszpańskich?) reprezentacjach (pewnie jakieś Portugalczyk lub (lub Hiszpan?) któremu coś nie pasi ;). LUCPOL 20:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how any edit that you disagree with you immediately blame on the bad faith of the person who made it. Ever heard of WP:AGF?

Anyway, why do you think that the creation of all those "national" teams was also done with community concensus? I have seen no evidence to that effect.

The only way in which we could be forced to use "national" would be if a specific Wikipedia guideline existed on the subject. As far as I know, there is not one, so we must go with the title which is the best for the given case (the titles of any other article simply do not matter). So please drop the argument based on the existence of other "national team" articles, as it clearly is not convincing to anyone here. Balcer 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeech. Niech już będzie. Dobra, zostawcie już tą zmienioną nazwę "Silesia football team" (bez słowa "national"). LUCPOL 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just tagged Image:Hussars 1604.jpg for having no source. Since it was uploaded by the inactive User:Emax, I saw the PWNB notice on the page and am notifying you guys here. Regards, howcheng {chat} 20:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the Hussar article, Image:Hussar by Alexander Orlowski.jpg and Image:Szarza Husarii.jpg. howcheng {chat} 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - finally somebody noticed the tags :) We will get right on it, hopefully we can find sources and additional info.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed two as PD with sources, but I am not sure about Image:Szarza Husarii.jpg. It may be a work of Stanisław Kaczor-Batowski (part of this image?), but I am not sure. Help with that one appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]