Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Archive4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

---

Dear Polish editors. Despite some of you initially voted keep at the VfD of the original Witkacy's Black Book, it seems to me (correct me if if I am wrong) that most people later realized that it was a bad idea and it's echo is still roaming at Hailibutt's RfA.

I just want to bring to your attention a new implementation of the same idea by a short-tempered "Ukrainian patriot" fellow who went on crusade with "Russian imperialism in Wikipedia". User:AlexPU started a new black book at his talk page [1]. I tried to talk to the guy politely about the issue (see [2]), but this was his responce. Since, he is unlikely to consider Poles to be supportes of Russian Imperialism maybe a word or two from moderate readers of this board would be useful. --Irpen 19:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I checked the links and if you insist I can add a comment there. However, I truly think it’s not a good idea. Your advice was very calm and thoughtful, and I cannot imagine anyone would do it better than you did. If he didn’t listen to you, it’s unlikely that he’ll listen to anyone else. Additionally, it seems that his emotions are so stirred at the moment that the more people will try to talk him out of the idea, the more he’ll stick to it. Also, if he’s stubborn, and probably he is, our comments may only make it harder for him to eventually step back from the idea in the future. I think it would be best to ignore it for now, and very likely he’ll just abandon the “Black Book” with time. It’s quite low on his talk page, so if there is no interest in it, he may just move it to archive soon. It’s certainly not the first BB on Wiki nor the last one. I for one found myself recently on HKT’s sockpuppet’s list and only laughed. (no, I didn’t offend anyone, I tried to mediate, lol) Anyhow, it seems that he’s a new user and have to learn his lesson on his own. Please, think about it and let me know what you prefer. --SylwiaS 21:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia, He is not a new user, he is an experienced user that returned from several months Wikibreak. On the other hand, from my past experience with him, he is just short-tempered but not foul-tempered. Therefore, calm persuasions from the Polish editors, who cannot be possibly allies of the Russian Imperialists (he included me in the latter) may actually help to convince him. Personally, I don't care about being in any of such stupid lists and I think I have almost made it to the Witkacy's one at that time. But if he can be convinced to abandon this inflammatory idea, the Wikipedia project might gain some civility. --Irpen 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll think of something tomorrow. Maybe others will too. :) --SylwiaS 00:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose he had a basis to include User:Ghirlandajo in blacklist. See commentary other editor User:Ghirlandajo in History for the last month.

• (rvv attack by Polish Mafia :)))
• (rvv a new attack by banderovtsy)
• rvv foolish ukrainization of russophone towns)
• (rvv idiotic Moldovan nationalism)
• (rvv a new piece of polish idiocy)
• (stop pushing laughable nationalism, or you will be banned)
• (rvv islamic propaganda)
• (rvv a lunatic vandal)
• (rvv to the last version by Irpen: wiki is not Halychian propaganda machine)
• (rv edits by another Polish zombie)
• (rv moron who was blocked yesterday but returned)
• (rv demented racist who was blocked yesterday but returned)
• (rv shameless POV-pushing by a banderovets)
• (rv a revert maniac)
• belarusian spelling is as pertinent as swahili --Yakudza 18:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yakudza, please do not add any heat here. The point is not whether and when Ghirla's behavior was always exemplary. The point is the creation of another black book as a way to address the problem, especially by the user not exactly known for his own examplary temper and behavior. If in doubt, check AlexPU's edit summaries and entries as other people's talk pages. It is OK with me to disagree on things. It is not OK, to badmouth opponents and create Black Books. The last one was a disaster and we don't need another one. I still hope that Polish editors who remember this too well will say something. --Irpen 18:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I left my comment there. However, I am quite appalled with the remarks made by Ghirlandajo on people of various nationalities. I want to assume good faith, so I'll presume that he didn't know how offending they are. But, since now I feel offended myself, I hope he can realise his mistake and offer us suitable apologies. --SylwiaS 00:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know why this should be discussed on the Polish notice-board. Secondly, I believe it took our Halychyan friend about a month to wade through my 15,800 edits to pick up these particular comments. If such is the case, he would oblige us by citing particular edits which occasioned them. Then, it would be easy to see that most were addressed to a gang of cronies who were the first to call me, Irpen, Mikkalai, Ezhiki, and others "Russian mafia" both within wiki and on external sites. We have just filed an arbitration procedure against them, so everyone is welcome to comment on the appropriate page. --Ghirlandajo 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Why, I had already assumed that your responses were due to other provocations, however, I still don’t think that they were justified. Incivility of others doesn’t excuse our behaviour, does it? I am Polish, and so your remarks refer to me as well as to the others. Are they deserved? I hope I haven’t done anything to offend you. I am sure that an arbitration procedure is a proper action, however, I am sorry that it could not have been undertaken before expressing opinions which affect all the Poles. If you didn’t mean a general offence, I think you shouldn’t have a problem with offering us your apologies. --SylwiaS 11:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I don't defend incivility. I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong, but I remind that the comments were addressed to extreme POV-pushers whose disruptive behaviour has been subjected to arbitration procedures. --Ghirlandajo 12:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you give me a link to the arbitration page, so that I could comment there? --SylwiaS 13:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I was rather surprized to see this. I becomes more and more difficult to surprize me at Wikipedia, but this kind of went ovet the top. So, did some Polish editors really encouraged this fellow and considered his adminship? Wow! I hoped that Sylwia would have been not the only reasonable editor to try to address the issue. Was I wrong? --Irpen 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Inspired by the recent voting on Brandt's painting, I decided to start an article about the Centre of Polish Sculpture in Orońsko (Centrum Rzeźby Polskiej). I have two questions:

1. Should I mention there also the Polish name, and if so, is there any common form of doing that?
2. What existing categories should be added to the article?

Thanks --SylwiaS 20:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

1. After the title you can add something like (Polish: polska nazwa)
2. Category:Polish culture is one. Try going to sculpture, and see what (sub)categories this article has, and chose something appopriate.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, categories added :) --SylwiaS 00:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How about "Polish Sculpture Center," in the English? logologist 02:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like "Polish Sculpture Centre" better, but I took their English name from their official page, so I don't know if it may be changed. May it? --SylwiaS 08:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's a Polish institution, then its Polish name is primary, and we may translate that name for ourselves (mentioning their translation at some point). A link may also be provided from their version.

They would not be the first Polish institution that has mistranslated its own name. If you need examples, let me know. logologist 10:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking all day about it, and I'm even more married to your idea. Esp. that it's definitely a Polish centre, but not only of Polish sculpture. There are many objects made by artists from various European countries in the park, and even some from Japan and the USA. Also, their services are offered to everyone, and many foreigners come to use their ateliers. So the name you proposed desribes the place much better than the one I used. So, how do I change the name? --SylwiaS 22:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I took the liberty of making the move, using the article's "move" button. logologist 00:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll know in future --SylwiaS 00:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The translation on the official website is correct, regardless of whether the centre contains sculpure from other parts of the world. In Centrum Rzeźby Polskiej the 'Polskiej' pertains to the 'Rzezba', meaning Polish sculpture, making it the Centre of Polish Sculpture. To say 'Polish Sculputre Centre' turns the meaning around - in other words 'Polish Centre of Sculpture' (which would be Polski Centrum Rzezby). This is different to a Centre of Polish Sculpture. It may be that the centre contains art that was created elsewhere, but if the centre has an official name then it should be translated correctly - which the official site has done. The page shouldn't have been moved. All the wikilinks from other sites still point to the old site so perhaps it should be moved back. -- Adz 01:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see my response on the Polish Sculpture Center discussion page. logologist 02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been argued convincingly that a prime consideration in rendering the Polish terms powiat and województwo into English should be consistency. I would add a second desideratum: the use of existing English-language equivalents. Personally I would use "county" for powiat, and "province" for województwo. Others as well have proposed these equivalents on the WikiProject Geography of Poland discussion page.

But, while we're at this, has any Wikipedia-wide effort been made to establish a universal convention, so that the same equivalents could be applied to most if not all countries?

If there is still no firm consensus as to English equivalents for the Polish terms, doubtless it will take substantial effort to reach consensus on universal equivalents. But wouldn't it be a worthwhile effort, if it saved the English-using Wikisphere from having to deal with dozens of national equivalents? Can you imagine, if we had to concurrently use every country's national word for the single term "apple"? logologist 11:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are well able to understand the difference between using "apple", "jablko", "appel" or "pomme" on every page and using the English language equivalent of terms that have a definite historical significance. You're just being facetious. ;) The reason why we speak of Voivod(e)ships in Poland instead of provinces has a historical reason. This is a bit of contextual information that can be added to an article on Polish voivodships to enrich the information content of the article. This is analogous to talking about régions, departements and arrondissements in France, prefectures in Japan or other Subnational entities. Knowing WHY a prefecture in Japan is called just that and THAT it is called as such, is definately more valuable than just calling it a province. That is why I would opt for the term Voivod(e)ship. As to powiat....I don't know a correct equivalent but I feel that county is ambiguous since an English county is historically something else from an American county. Chelman 13:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and a Fuji apple is something different from a Golden Delicious apple. Could you please elaborate on the historical necessity of "voivodship" in English usage? logologist 14:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As to voivod(e)ship, I believe it's harmless and has the merit of being used almost universally as the English equivalent of Polish województwo. Contrary to province, which in Poland is used to refer to quite a different type of administrative unit (Province of Posen, for instance), it is 100% unambigous. The case of powiat is a tad more complex as there is no universally accepted version and, as our chat at WikiProject Geography of Poland has shown, we could as well use the terms of district, county, prefecture and perhaps even more. I believe the historical arguments for using powiat instead of county (hrabstwo in Polish) are quite serious and we could go either way here. However, lately we (me and Balcer) finally settled the problem of double naming by moving all of the county articles to powiat of XXX scheme and fixing the List of Polish powiats page. The solution is far from perfect, but it's at least consistent. Halibutt 15:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, and a Granny Smith is different still, what are you aiming at? Anyway; województwo had a specific significance in the past (you know...the whole thing with the military chieftains etc. it's explained in: Voivodship). By using that term and pointing it out you direct a reader checking up on Poland or Pomorskie in a possible direction as to WHY and HOW the administrative division as we know it now came to be. You also potentially point him to read up more on the history. You provide MORE, RELEVANT information relating to the administrative division than you would by simply using the word province. The same is the case with the other national subdivisions. I am assuming that you want to replace the cantons, prefectures, régions etc. by province as well? Chelman 15:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Chelman here: that's exactly what encyclopedia is for: educate and not translate. I believe some of the issues raised by logologist here were already settled back in the good ol' Talk:Voivodships of Poland times. Halibutt 16:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There is one strong argument for using voivodship instead of province: during the times of the PLC, province reffered to entities larger the voivodship - i.e. Małopolska, Wielkposlka, Prusy, Litwa - those were provinces. See my revised Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Voivodships_of_the_Commonwealth.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Since prowincja was only used historically, for these super-entities, it would be simple enough to differentiate them from województwo-provinces by referring to the individual super-entities by their individual names (Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Prussia, Lithuania) or collectively by the Polish term prowincje. The historian will have no difficulties; the general reader likely will not have heard of "province" having been used for the super-entities.

Japan provides an instructive example of translating her terms. She translates the Japanese word, Todōfuken, as prefecture, a Latin-derived European word.

And, by the way, why are the names of the old Polish prowincje, listed above, translated in their Wiki articles rather than imported bodily as advocated by some? logologist 05:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd very much like to read "Zbiegostwo ludności Rosji w granice Rzeczypospolitej" from 2004 issue(got that one through off-wiki friend), and their entire 5-part series "Moje spotkania z polskimi inżynierami wojskowymi XVII" - but I cannot get them in US. So if somebody would happen to have the possibility to 'lend online' those articles, I'd appreciate it very much. Note that some of the older articles from Pro Memoria are online, including the 2nd part of the "Moje spotkania..." about "Fryderyk Getkant".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I’ve found an article about economics in pre-war Poland. It’s mostly one-sided opinion, still it provides some information, so I though it might be an interesting read. Here it is 1--SylwiaS 13:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be good to incorporate it to Second_Polish_Republic#Economy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

We have quite a few articles dealing with the question of Polish border change after IIWW and they often cover similar events - I'd go as far as to say some of them are nothing but POV forks. Here are some of the related articles - I probably have missed some: Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Potsdam Agreement, Historical Eastern Germany, Human_migration#World_War_II_and_post-World_War_II_Migrations, Oder-Neisse line, Recovered Territories, Revision of borders of Poland (1945), Soviet occupation zone, Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, Treaty of Zgorzelec, Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany. We should fix that - I think most of them should be merged, and all should be categorized (perhaps Category:Polish-German border issue, or just Category:Polish borders) and/or linked from a signle template. Similarly, it would be useful to review articles dealing with Polish eastern border.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There are also (seemingly) redundant articles at Lubusz Land, Neumark (region), and East Brandenburg. Olessi 21:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt has made a pretty template at Template:Polish borders. I think we can use it together with article Territorial changes of Poland after World War II and a new category Category:Territorial changes of Poland after World War II to sort this mess out.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

All right, I am going ahead and create a Category:Polish borders, a subcat to Category:Borders.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See my proposal at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming. Time to end the rule of the 'lauses'. I was kind of suprised, but it may be that translating the nickname is actually the good idea (i.e. 'the Brave' may be better then 'Chrobry' - see my analysis at Talk:Boleslaus_I_of_Poland#Move. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Did two more counts: for Talk:Casimir I of Poland and Talk:Boleslaus II of Poland. I'd appreciate help with this - if somebody could start counting from 'bottom up', for example? In addition to giving us data to back up the move, this also generates list of redirects we need to make. This raises another issue: redirects are very useful, especially as Britannica, Columbia, Catholic Encyclopedia and other sources often use strange, latinized or anglicized versions (like Peter Skarga instead of Piotr Skarga, or Johannes Alasco for Jan Łaski - so listing all possible redirects and the creating them makes the job easier for guys at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, who can cross out some of them from their list (not to mention it avoids creating duplicate articles and such).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the mass moving of articles to Polish spelling, instead of maintaining the Wikipedia policy of keeping "most common English usage" of a name. This hidden discussion at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming did not generate a clear consensus, and proceeded despite clear opposition. The name changes should be reverted. Elonka 23:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Belarus Zerknijcie na tą stronę, pewien rosyjski wikipedian wprowadza dość kontrowersyjne zmiany w historii z okresu Rzeczpospolitej Obojga Narodów-w rodzaju "ciężkie prześladowania prawosławnych chłopów przez polskich overlordów", "represjonowana ludność prosi o pomoc cara w Rosji, który broni ich przed Polską" itd. --Molobo 12:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Care to translate this gibberish? --Ghirlandajo 12:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, it's Polish, not gibberish. It's possible to ask the question without being insolent. Appleseed 14:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Please post comments in Polish to pl.wiki. This project is not a proper place for Polish-language disputes. --Ghirlandajo 14:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Teraz Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów stała się Polish Empire ;)

--Molobo 13:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlando and Kuban Kazak are really out of control there, deleting sourced information and denying that there has ever been a Russification or that Belarus is a dictatorship. Input from other editors is needed to stop what increasingly looks like a revert war.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure who really went out of control there. You forget to mention that it was you, Halibutt, Molobo, and Lysy who ganged up against me yesterday on the article. It seems like yesterday's disgusting persecution and revert warring was instigated by Molobo when he started wooing revert warriors via the one's own nationality's noticeboard (see above). Halibutt, as usual, was not far way, encouraging Molobo to "feel free to add your 2 cents there" and starting to compose a new black list. As if these five vs. one were not enough, now you are here to recruit more supporters. Kuban Kazak never resorted to such dirty tricks. I've been waiting for your apologies for yesterday's slurs but now it's getting clear to me that it's beneath your dignity to apologise. --Stupid Katsap 17:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't go into that besides KK nobody else is supporting your view, since 6 users is not realy a representative sample. I am however suprised by your demand for apology - please show me where have I offended you? On the other hand that page (talk and summaries) contain dozens of your personal attacks about Poles in general and Halibutt in specific, and you don't deem it necessary to reply to his well deserved apology demand.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, a gang of Polish users recruited by one of them at their national notice board are hardly representative of "community's opinion", contrary to your yesterday's assumptions. If there is noone on my side, it's only because I don't deem it worthwhile to post similar announcements on the Russian noticeboard and to recruit people for revert warring, like you do. As for Halibutt's perennial offense - what I should apologise for - for his calling me "vodka pisser", "vodka drinker", or for his starting a black book slandering me? Please specify. --Stupid Katsap and Vodka Pisser 17:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken here. Firstly, History of Belarus was on my watchlist, so I didn't have to "be recruited" to notice your POV edits there. Secondly, you have posted an "urgent" announcement complaining on a "gang of Poles" on Russian notice board and I think you should remember this. Myself, I'm not a member of any gang for your information. Finally, it is not true that Halibutt called you a vodka pisser and it's not getting any more true just because you're constantly whining about this. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I posted my announcement a day after Molobo's and hours after you had placed your slur on the Adminsitrators' noticeboard, but thenI retracted it within several hours, not wishing to drag Russian users into this silly warring, as I termed it then. Secondly, Vodka pissers was a libel applied by Halibutt to Russians in the conversation with me as a Russian, hence the offense was addressed to myself. He already had issues with a similar oblique anti-Russian comment in the past, see his RfA for that. So far, he haven't apologised neither for the first insult nor for the second one. --Stupid Katsap 11:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.taraskuzio.net/academic/history.pdf National Identities, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2001 Historiography and National Identity among the Eastern Slavs: Towards a New Framework1 TARAS KUZIO, York University, Toronto, Canada

Abstract The article surveys Tsarist, Soviet and Western historiography of Russia and how this affected the national identities and inter-ethnic relations among the three eastern Slavs. Western historiography of Russia largely utilised an imperialist and statist historiographical framework created within the Tsarist empire during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although this framework was imperialist it was gradually accepted as ‘objective’ by the Western scholarly community. Yet, this historiography was far from being ‘objective’. After 1934 Soviet historiography also reverted to the majority of the tenets found in Tsarist historiography. Within Tsarist, Western and Soviet historiographies of ‘Russia’ eastern Slavic history was nationalised on behalf of the Russian nation which served to either ignore or deny a separate history and identity for Ukrainians and Belarusians. In the post-Soviet era all 15 Soviet successor states are undertaking nation and state building projects which utilise history and myths to inculcate new national identities. The continued utilisation of the Tsarist, Western and Soviet imperial and statist historiographical schema is no longer tenable and serves to undermine civic nation building in the Russian Federation. This article argues in favour of a new, non-imperial framework for histories of ‘Russia’ territorially based upon the Russian Federation and inclusive of all of its citizens.

• I recommend all contributors interested in topics related to our joint history on reading this interesting paper.

--Molobo 12:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know if it is possible to make links to googleprint pages ? --Molobo 18:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Specific pages? I am not sure. You can always link the book and give the page number in a comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Here’s an interesting survey Auschwitz in consciousness of Poles. I thought that we might add some of the data to one of articles referring to the subject. E.g. 11% of adult Poles had a relative imprisoned in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and 5% had a relative who died there. Any ideas?--SylwiaS 20:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of a standard way to add captions to images, especially images of historical paintings? I haven't seen a consistent approach, with captions including any combination of the following: title, author, size of original, date created, medium, location of original, plus a text caption explaining the image.

I find that providing that much information is overkill, and personally prefer the minimalist approach--only the title and author. The other information can be mentioned in the actual image page.

The reason I ask is because I would like to trim the captions in the articles I'm working on. Appleseed 22:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Try asking at Wikipedia:Images or some subarticles. I am not aware of any policy. I don't think all that needs to go to the caption, but it definetly should go to the image's own page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In most cases I use the following way:

"Blah-blah", painting by Painting Painter, 2005, oil on canvas

At times I also add the place the painting is shown in currently. Halibutt 14:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, can you please take a look at Reichskommissariat Ostland, because I can't handle it no more. I tried to fix it but this puzzle is too complicated for my spaced out brain. Thanks. Kosmak aka ET aka Space Cadet 13:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I solved this puzzle, judging from the contributions of the author. A while ago an anon started pumping into wikipedia non-decypherable texts about Imperial Japan of 1930s-1940s. It turned out that he is translating some obscure Japanese book. I guess he is doing here exactly the same, getting himself a name. Sprechen sie Japanglisch? Czy panowie rozumia Engrish? :-) mikka (t) 05:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. Worth following if you want to make sure that the rule deciding 'what nationality this person is' is a good one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Article needs a serious upgrade. Balcer 18:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is ongoing revert war[3] on article on Poles where it seems the number of Polish people is being disputed with some author using 1971 cenzus numbers as reference and claiming there are less then 10.000 Poles in Britain.Perhaps somebody should take a look ? --Molobo 12:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Przy okazji spojrzałem na kontrybucje autora tego zamieszania, redukuje liczbę Polonii z tekstami "revert nationalistic trolls", w międzyczasie pracuje nad zwiększaniem liczby Niemców w artykule o tej narodowości ;) --Molobo 13:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Among articles in Polish that appear here rather regularly :) -- there is one, Walery Cyryl Amrogowicz, which is currently listed on Pages needing translation into English (usually it's there for about two weeks). Perhaps somebody would be interested and translate it. Thanks, and cheers! - Introvert ^talk 04:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

After reading this news, I conceived the idea of starting an article on Polish gulag in order to enlarge on the peculiar Polish understanding of human rights. I request everyone interested in the project to help me with materials. Otherwise, I'll have no other option but to use scanty stuff available from Russian sources. Sincerely, Ghirlandajo 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Gulag is the right term for this. CIA secret prison in Poland or sth like this may be better. However the article barely mentions anything except that such a camp might have been localized in Poland - speculation not worthy of a stub, but you may want to expand CIA secret prisons article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that CIA prison system would be the better choice of article since it already covers the Romanian location. Chelman 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Romanian base is claimed was not used for detention. mikka (t) 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case, Katyn Massacre should be merged with Gulag. --Ghirlandajo 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I don't follow your reasoning.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

His reasoning is that if there is much to write about a topic, it deserves a separate article. mikka (t) 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest to wait a bit until the facts are better established and verified. Right now this would qualify for a Wikinews article rather than for wikipedia. If such article is created in the future its title should reflect the official name of the detention centre. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means. Credit where credit is due! logologist 05:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There is about 150 Polish native speakers on en-Wiki - possibly some more, who don't know/care Wikipedia:Babel. I am pretty sure many of them are unaware of this noticeboard. Anybody would like to volunteer to tell them about it? As a trivia info: there is over 800 German native speakers here, but AFAIK they don't have their own noticeboard. Strange, isn't it?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they have more local feeling than a national one. There were over 300 states in Holy Roman Empire. Makes not even 3 users for a notice board. :) I can inform those starting with "A".--SylwiaS 21:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good start. I will do "B". Who's next?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Piotr, "B" is too short. Take "C" as well.--SylwiaS 14:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. "B" is done, I'll do "C" soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus^Talk 15:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"A" is done. Some had already invitations from Witkacy or yourself, so I made also "D", "E", "F", and "G".--SylwiaS 16:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"C" is done. I will start on "H" next :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they don't like the nationalist sentiments expressed on this board and don't want to have anything to do with the various nationalist debates/edit wars that certain prominent Polish Wikipedians engage in, and recruit others to engage in. (Gdansk, Lithuania, etc.) Wikipedia is a great vehicle for international cooperation. It shouldn't be used to further nationalist disputes. - Certainly not in this day and age! If the notice board was more constructive and less negative/adversarial/nationalist then maybe other people would be encouraged to use it.

You are right, Wikipedia is a great vehicle for international cooperation! I'm glad we haven't discouraged yourself.--SylwiaS 14:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll, Sylwia. Or sock-puppets of fairly obvious origin.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have created an article on this subject, but now I think that the 'in Italy' description is not correct. Although Dąbrowski's Legion was created in Italy (and eventually the above should redirect into it), the article as it is now (and as it is linked from most other articles) refers to a larger phenomenon: Polish Legions of Napoleon, perhaps, would be a better name? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Napoleon's Polish Legions"? logologist 03:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at Category:Wikipedia new articles. mikka (t) 05:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we have the Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/to do but few people seem to use it :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've started Portal:Poland/New_article_announcements. Let's see how useful this is going to be. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone, wiser than I am in 19th century Polish history, have a look at Antoni Patek article and comment/expand/rewrite information about “unfavourable decree issued by French government” in Antoni_Patek#Early_life, and “meeting of Dozór Polski in Frankfurt am Main” in Antoni_Patek#Patek.27s_political_life? Also, a Polish source says about evacuation of Polish soldiers after November Uprising organised by Józef Bem, while a French one says about Józef Berri; I left Bem. Is it correct?--SylwiaS 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that we all should add ourselves to this category Category:Wikipedians in Poland. Only 22 users listed so far.--SylwiaS | talk 17:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm in New York now, but my heart will always be in Poland, do I qualify? Space Cadet 23:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure--SylwiaS | talk 23:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say no - it seems like it's about geographical location, not nationality. There seem to be nationality cat. All things consider, this is mostly trivia - only Wikipedia:Babel is really useful. Not that anybody who has seen my userpage would accuse me of being against trivia :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sure, many of yours were offended by User:Ghirlandajo. Now his behavior is being considered by Arbitration Committee. Although the case was entitled as "Community vs. AndriyK", all involved parties are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute. In particular, Rudeness and personal attacks by Ghirlandajo will be considered. You can help by adding Evidence on the special page. Anyone (not only involved parties) may add evidence to this page. Please pay attention that the evidence should be presented in special format. You may also add your comments on the workshop page.--AndriyK 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my earlier today's edit in AndriyK's RfA triggered the this announcement. While I've had many unpleasant encounters with Ghirlandajo myself, I don't think we need any widening of the antagonism here, and especially do not appreciate the personal tone of the above announcement. I also do not think this is a "Poles vs. Ghirlanadajo" conflict, regardless of how he depicts it. I have seen Ghirlanadajo demonstrating similar rude behaviour against non-Polish (e.g. Lithuanian or Ukrainian) editors as well. As for AndriyK, I think he should try to behave civil and respect other editors, regardless of their point of view. --Lysy ^(talk) 23:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, my announcement was not triggered by your edits. The reson was, as I explained above, the reason was that the Arbitration Committee is considering the Rudeness and personal attacks by Ghirlandajo. I do not think that anybody here was pleased by comments like this one. So I invited everybody (not only you) to provide the Arbitration Committee with more information. Unfortunately, I cannot find Lithuanian (Latvian etc.) notice board.--AndriyK 11:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Kolejne działania pana Ghirlanadajo, tym razem wykasowuje informacje o tym iż Katyn jest kwestionowany przez pewnych autorów z tekstu o Holocaust Denial, sugerując przy tym że oczywiście nie było to ludobójstwo[4] --Molobo 11:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, you again forget that this is not pl.wiki. Please speak English. Your blind revert wars lead to nowhere. --Ghirlandajo 11:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, perhaps you have a dual personality? Just a few days ago you yourself wrote that the whole affair was forged by CIA propaganda. Don't you agree with yourself?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I also want to mention that at this moment, in the article on the subject in Russian Wikipedia, the lead has been turned into a nasty piece of propaganda denying the facts of the massacre - ru:Катыньский инцидент. Clearly this is not necessarily our concern, but if any users reading this page know Russian, they might want to take a look. Balcer 16:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A user showed up[5] that changes civilians murdered in Wola massarce to "execution of the rebels"[6]. I don't want to break 3RR so I am asking for assistance in this matter. --Molobo 22:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet again our favourite page about the Evil Poles has fallen subject to a case of nasty vandalism.A vandal named "Zydokomuna" (who might be a sockpuppet) appeared who in line with other users tries to delete information that Poles were subject of genocide during Nazi Germany occupation.Assistance is welcome. --Molobo 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) You're lying, anti-Semitite. Do you know how your comment is called? Demagoguery. Why do you show it to Poles? Do you really think that only there you can find support?

Ah an antisemite-I will add this to the collection. I am already a part of anti-East Slavic conspiracy and anti-German :) Cheers. --Molobo 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid your contributions today have had a rather Anti-Semitic trait. I've even invited you to clarify your position and you refused to do it. I'm not aware of other names you've received in your "career", but I'm afraid that your claims today are very disturbing. Alexbulg 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not joking and stop making fun of me and deleting my comments from your talk page. I did not insult you in it. Note that no one "tries to delete information that Poles were subject of genocide during Nazi Germany occupation".

I am currently discussing over that article with Molobo, and we've exchanged our opinions thoroughly today at its Talk page, but the information about the mass murder of Poles during WWII in currently not in danger whatsoever. Do not mistake my contributions (regarding the links between right wing parties and its broad use of the term, a fact that I've repeatedly sourced) with said issue, brought here by Molobo only to get sympathy for reverting. Alexbulg 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As seen by this edit Alexbulg's statement is proven to be untrue: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Polonism&diff=31212068&oldid=31211869 --Molobo 18:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not an edit made by me, in any case, thus I can't respond for it. I do however see at it your removal of Jewish sources and related facts. I also observe that the phrase "Millions of Poles died in German concentration camps such as Auschwitz (in Poland), where Poles were the second most numerous victims after the Jews" (which is the core of the idea) was respected by that user, so I fail to see the "delet(ion of) information that Poles were subject of genocide during Nazi Germany occupation" that you strangely claim was endangered. Ironically, all you have only proven to be wrong, is yourself. Alexbulg 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The user changes the statement to "Hostility toward Poles reached a particular peak during World War II, when predominantly the Jews of Poland were objects of German genocidal policies. Some citizens helped the Jews but on the whole it was in vain", which obviously distorts the message of the information, that is , that Poles were subject of genocide based on antipolonism. --Molobo 18:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, you didn't limit your edit dispute to that paragraph added by that user. You removed sourced and relevant information I had provided too. Most important, you also lied to your contrymen at this board by posting above that some user in line with other users tries to delete information that Poles were subject of genocide during Nazi Germany occupation, therefore acussing me of something I haven't done, most likely in hope that they'd revert for you in good faith, not knowing the truth and all the issues behind the discussion. Alexbulg 18:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I even created a special chapter on your POV. --Molobo 18:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So you don't deny that you lied to your fellow contrymen at this board? Alexbulg 18:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I never lied.Your personal aggresive remarks speak critically about your contribution to the article, as your belief that I am part of some conspiracy. --Molobo 18:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean, agressive remarks like this unanswered offer [7] I made to you to reach a mutual agreement? In fact, the only agression I see is you lying about the article being endangered due to a cause that would make all Polish users rush to revert in good faith, unaware of your unjustified deletion of information regarding connected Jewish issues (not those related to the Holocaust as in the edit above but on the connection between modern Anti-Semitism and Anti-Polonism). Alexbulg 19:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) "You mean, agressive remarks like this " Like this : [8] "Unfortunatley, the image of yourself you're presenting is that you're a supporter of NOP of other alike party." [9] "only that certain Poles like you, as a militant of NOP, don't have a neutral stance" [10] "== Your Anti-Semitism == "I also have noticed that you support the theory of Żydokomuna. Please leave the dogmatic teachings of your party outside the Wikipedia" [11] "You thus support the theory of a Jewish conspiracy against Poland, which is no suprise considering your political affiliation." --Molobo 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But of course, since you adhered to said positions [12] [13] and your addition of the following paragraph: "The groups which are currently most frequently accussed for anti-Polonism include Jewish circles (see Żydokomuna) together with German and Russian politics." I simply invite everyone interested to read all the discussion thoroughly and see the Anti-Semitic color behind your edits. Alexbulg 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What escapes me is why Halibutt, with his self-professed Jewish roots, and Piotrus, who should stay neutral as an admin, patronize a person like Molobo. Hatred towards Russia united Hitler with Churchill, as they say.--Ghirlandajo 19:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, please, calm down. I believe any further discussion in this manner will not take you anywhere. I read your messages, and I must say I don't really understand what the point of this discussion is. What you quoted is certainly taken out of context, and it's difficult to make any sense of it. Could, each of you, say what do you want to have in the article and how it's sourced?--SylwiaS | talk 19:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying somebody has such views doesn't equal agreeing with them. --Molobo 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) " and see the Anti-Semitic color behind your edits" Yes this can be seen in my efforts to mention Jewish victims and defend Yad Vashem[14] --Molobo 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you "defended" it cause it suited your POV there and you needed the source, that's all. When brought before the alternative of respecting reputed Jewish sources against your POV, you rejected them, even deprecating Jewish personalities, thus showing your true colors. Also you didn't say that someone has such views, you pointed at the groups "responsible" of Anti-Polonism according to you and adhered to the theory of Żydokomuna.

Sylwia, the whole discussion can be seen atthe article's Talk Page. I even made a full, large scale version of the article with sources that was reverted by Molobo in late November when I was on vacation, yet I have chosen not to revert to it until I had discussed, and I still haven't reverted to it despite this. I suggest you compare the versions to have a full idea of the disagreement, which has been turned into something personal by Molobo, something in which I see he has a gift. Alexbulg 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) "I see you "defended" it cause it suited your POV there and you needed the source, that's all." I am sorry that you see it this way. "When brought before the alternative of respecting reputed Jewish sources against your POV, you rejected them, even deprecating Jewish personalities, thus showing your true colors." What are you talking about ? This is completely false, unless you are still defending as right racist remarks that Poles have national negative traits from birth.

" you pointed at the groups "responsible" of Anti-Polonism according to you and adhered to the theory of Żydokomuna." Another lie, in order to present me as antisemic.Nothing as such happened, in fact I added information abotu antisemitic theories in the article in the chapter on misuse of the term. The reference you are pointing at is saying "groups seen as responsible by some" not "groups responsible", so your accusations are groundless and simple personal attack. In fact you threatened me before to comply with your POV or face being named antisemite[15] "I suggest you retract immediately if you don't want to be labeled an anti-semitic." You engaged in personal attacks and insults in order to push your POV,claiming I am part of conspiracy, threatening to libel me an antisemite if not complying to your views, and claiming I am member of extremist right wing party. This makes your contributions seem highly biased in view of such emotional activity. --Molobo 19:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet another lie on your part, since it was far from a threat, but a suggestion taht you clarified your stance in the light of the anti-semitism of your edits in order that you could save your good name. At no time I said I was going to acusse you of anti-semitism, but that before anyone else could acusse you of it, you made clear what your intention and personal belief was. You completely refused and continued to remove Jewish sources, thus making clear where your personal ideas lie. Alexbulg 19:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 'You completely refused and continued to remove Jewish sources, thus making clear where your personal ideas lie. ' They weren't relevant to the article Alexbulg, I even gave you link to the article that you should be interested in if you want to write about antisemitism in Poland.Changing the article from Antipolonism to Polish Antisemitism isn't appropriate. Hoping for compromise I even created a section on misuse of the term.And it was me who added fact that the term is misused in the first place.I am sorry but you seem to have strong POV that everything not dealing with antisemitism is antisemitism, and anyone not interested into turning every page about persecution of Jews in Poland an antisemite and member of far right party. I am frankly not interested much in Polish-Jewish relations to say the truth though. --Molobo 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I really have enough of that personal accusations. Here is RFC for Molobo. If the other party is not going to stop this personal dispute I'm going to post one for him too. All Polish wikipedians are welcome to discuss on the RFC page. Alx-pl D 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Goodbye

I thank Piotrus, Halibutt, Space_Cadet, SylwiaS, and many others for their presence.Sadly I am in no position to defend myself against a multitude of users with far more experience then me. Goodbye. --Molobo 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In case you can still read it. You can ask for help people from Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates which are probably very much experienced in application of wikipedia rules. They help in conducting defences along the lines of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I strongly prefer to clarify all the issues instead of just leaving the case unresolved. Alx-pl D 20:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that we leave it all until tomorrow? I believe that it's not so unusual on Wiki that two editors get into a heated discussion on some topic. However, there are certainly milder forms of resolving disputes than RFC. I was just going to read through the article's talk page to get some idea of what it is all about, but the RFC appeared before I even had a chance to do that. Could you rethink the RFC for now? We might then use the opportunity to try to resolve the dispute at hand. Please, think about it. I wish everyone good night.--SylwiaS | talk 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I will consider that. Alx-pl D 21:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.--SylwiaS | talk 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am disapointed in you: if you think you are right, you should defend your case. Retreating is nothing short of admiting guilt and defeat. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I am tired Peter.Tired of being called antisemite by people who claim there isn't anything racist in saying Poles are born with negative traits.Called for RFC by people who try whatever means possible to delete information about racism from articles about German figures, being attacked for entering information on atrocities by German units by people who at the same time claim murdering 13 Poles isn "significant". --Molobo 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My advice is two-fold: 1) take a break from controversial articles 2) always provide inline citations in your edits. All can be resolved if you - all of you - take a step back and try to reach a common ground.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I slept with the problem and I don't really think like retreating from the RFC. It is several months that I lost my belief in good will of Molobo and I was contemplating to make an RFC. It seems that he lost the faith before too. I always tried to explain myself that it is not so bad and if it's only me then it's not a problem, but I can see that the conflicts around Molobo are permanent and sometimes they rise in intensity as this one. In this light, it is much better for the case to go through and gather opinions of wikipedians on what's wrong and what's good in this case. In my opinion the value of the informational content brought by Molobo is beyond all dispute. This is warmheartedly welcome. I only am angry with his emotional way of presenting arguments that leads only to very long disputes that do clarify nothing. My opinion is that this case should serve not to condemn Molobo in any way, but to show what are the good and the bad practices (both on his side and on the side of his opponents including me). In particular it is an occasion for the Polish wikipedian community to assert what is/was wrong in this case. I really would like to see Molobo coming back and taking part in this process. I am concoious that my account of the case is one-sided, but I am also concious that I am not able to present the other side of the case in a fair way. I really count on Molobo to present this other side. Alx-pl D 08:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, can you show me any positive contribution of Molobo to this Wikipedia? I've got an impression that the guy's mission is to engage in revert warring and to sow discord between contributors of various nations. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Ghirlandajo 08:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

He provided many sources for different topics. The problem is that the way he presents the sources and defends them is very difficult to stand, especially when non-Polish contributors are involved. As it sometimes comes to the point that such a non-Polish contributor must verify his opinion based on sources, the contributor is twice as much challenged as needed, because he must overcome not only his/her own stereotypes but also a huge emotional barrier produced by the way Molobo acts. This is probably why you can't see him as a positive contributor, IMHO. Alx-pl D 10:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. Probably Molobo's strategies on the Eastern and Western fronts differ a little, for I don't remember him providing any sources on Russia-related topics. To the best of my knowledge, the only Russia-related article he started - Judas of Slavdom - was a deliberate spoof. --Ghirlandajo 11:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it very unfortunate, and at the same time highly significant of Molobo's overall behaviour, that he runs away as soon as he is challenged to legitimise his contributions within a formal procedure. The argument that he suddenly feels unable to cope with users with "more experience" seems like a transparent excuse - after all, he has never shied away from bluntly confronting users with more experience as well as more expertise than he has.

As for the quality of Molobo's contributions: Apart from his extremely obstructive and unfair behaviour on talk pages, he almost exclusively provided cherry-picked random Google results which happened to support, or could be misconstrued to support, his own preconceptions about politics and history. These preconceptions demonstrably stem from, or at least coincide with, those of the extreme political right in Poland. In at least two cases, he referenced Google Print results which were not even available to the public, so he can't possibly have read them himself.

If any proof was needed that narrow-mindedness plus Google do not equate to knowledge, Molobo provided it in abundance. Worst of all, Molobo arrogated the function of an advocate of some ill-defined Polish cause. If there are people who believe that the Poles are a disagreeable, self-pitying bunch, with sympathy for nobody but themselves and criticism for everybody but themselves, Molobo must have confirmed their prejudice perfectly.

I am particularly disappointed that deservedly reputable Polish users - with the exception of Alx-pl - apparently failed to understand this and patronised Molobo on several occasions, displaying what can only be seen as a "my country right or wrong" attitude. Perhaps they fell victim to Molobo's manipulation, who somehow convinced them that they are in a win-lose situation ("Poland vs. Rest of World"). But perhaps I am overestimating Molobo's cleverness and their naivety, and the problem is really much graver.

Whatever, maybe Molobo decided to bow out because he himself finally realised that his absence is doing the "Polish cause" a much better service than his presence. Personally, I'm afraid that means overestimating him again, but let us give him the due benefit of the doubt. Goodbye, then. --Thorsten1 14:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not reviewed majority Molobo contributions, and I rarely edit most of the topics he does. Maybe his conduct somewhere has been negative - if so, please provide specific examples, and the Polish editors who read this board will comment on them. I have been familiar in detail only with one of the topics he edited, on the German 4th Panzer Division, and his conduct there, especially in providing references, was very positive. I did spot that Molobo does have an unfortuante tendency to engage in pointless discussion on the talk pages, wasting his time, instead of ignoring the common personal attacks and concentrating on content editing, providing yet more references - but this is a common fault of many a Wikipedia editor (including all of those who 'engage' Molobo on talk pages). Molobo is still however much more polite then User:Ghirlandajo (whom I will use as an example since he joined this discussion), whose common inectives, personal attacks and recent promotion of controversial, POVed history revisionists can be viewed on his recent RfC page (although I'll add here that Ghirlandajo is much more active then Molobo and has created much valuable content for Wiki as well). I also find that Molobo is very active in spotting vandalism and nationalistic POV-pushers like thhat of User:Jadger, who unfortunately seem to more often then not ignored by the more sensible German editors. Until they can't control their fringe POV pushers, then somebody has to keep them in check - and I thank Molobo for taking this burdensome task of my hands. Finally: if Molobo oversteps his boundaries, like User:Ghirlandajo did, then yes, feel free to RfC him (although mediation is should be tried first). We - the Polish editors - will not (I hope) treat Molobo any differently then we would treat editors of other nationalites. Until then, I think Molobo earned himself a ribbon :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, and I'm not afraid to admit it, so it has been shocking to be "welcomed" in such a way. Nor I do know Ghirlandajo or the other users you mention. But I have taken the time to browse a little through his contributions, and the more I read, the more I come to the conclusion that:

• He has not read the references he provides
• He merely performs Google searchs to find links to "prove" his statements, often unverifiable and/or unsourced ones
• It is often "he" who engages with other users in discussions, not the other way around
• He squeezes all the mustered "evidence" into the small box of his POV
• Everything that could be perceived as criticism towards Poland in any way, is Anti-Polonism
• He never admits being wrong, having acted hastily, apologize for an outburst, offer nor accept a compromise.

Piotr, you're justifying the activities of your own "beast" with those of other nationalities? Way to go, feed the fire and let's keep it burning high between all nations. As long as you gift ribbons to what it seems is the worst POV pusher of your nationality, you're also legitimating the same attitude towards Polish related articles from same the German "beasts" you denounce. I wonder if, given the incredible amount of people who has clashed with Molobo (judging from his Talk Page's history), it has not in many cases been "him" the one responsible for the passions to rise and the discussions to uselessly degenerate into personal matters. At least, I know that's what he did with me. Alexbulg 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you took time to read my comments above, you would notice that I said that *I*, personally, have not found any indications of Molobo's misbehaviour (although I am aware he has broken 3RR rule several times, and I had personally warned him to be careful and not to do this again) - but I was not looking for them. If you are more familiar with his actions and had found him behaving uncivil or breaking other Wikipedia rules, then please, show us the relevant links, ask for mediations or comments. Until then what you are doing is called 'unbased accusations'. Besides, reading your above comment, I see a personal attack (calling Molobo a beast) which does little to increasy my opinion of your neutrality in this matter.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexbulg, I fully agree with your assessment and encourage you to repeat it on Molobo's RFC, which appears to go ahead regardless of whether he is going to remain silent or not.

Piotrus, you know I admire your contributions, but your response above confirms my concerns about the harmful national allegiances that come into play here. Your defence rests on two arguments: First of all, you have not observed the majority of his contributions, except for German 4th Panzer Division, where you say his conduct was "very positive". With me it is exactly the opposite: I have observed just about everything Molobo did, except for German 4th Panzer Division. (Although I have a degree in modern history, my disinterest in military history or even the of history particular units is overwhelming.) Even though I find it hard to believe, judging from his negative conduct everywhere else, I am willing to concede that his conduct there may have been positive. But even if it was, this does not invalidate the complains about his conduct elsewhere, about which I really have nothing charitable to say. Second of all, you refer to Ghirlandajo and Jadger. This is not a valid argument whatsoever, because two wrongs don't make a right, even if you are correct in complaining about them. Nothing that Ghirlandajo or anyone else do can justify Molobo. Wikipedia does not need nationalist POV-pushing from any side, and to trust two POV-pushing sides to produce a balanced result is naive. And to say that you think it is OK to let Molobo do his thing, or even actively encourage him, because other users of other nationalities ignore "their" trolls, too, is an argument far below the standard one would expect from an editor of your standing. To your credit, you were honest enough to declare that national loyalty might cloud your judgment of Molobo ([16]). But if Alx-pl is able to form an objective view, why can't you? Instead of belittling or even defending the narrow-mindedness, incompetence, and pugnacity behind Molobo's edits, it should actually be a matter of the heart for a Pole to show that these are not national characteristics. At any rate, I must say that I am seriously disappointed by your evasive approach to the problem. --Thorsten1 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and accepting that you indeed have evidence to prove what you are saying, I agree with you, although I don't consider my behaviour 'evasive'. As I stated again, nationality may cloud my - or anybody's else judgement, this is why all such cases should be reviewed by neutral, uninvolved people (which is why we have mediators, arbitrators and such). If a proof is presented to me that Molobo has acted against our policies, I'll act - either as a mediator, administrator, or just commentator, depending on what I judge is the best. I have not seen such a proof yet because I don't have time to look for it. If there is a RfM, RfC or RfA, I'll gladly review the evidence and present my opinion. At that moment based on what little evidence I had, my POVed view of this matter is that Molobo acts much more civilized then Ghirdlandajo or Jadger, and I have not seen any actions of his that would warrant Rfsomething - but that does not mean I oppose it. You have the proof, go ahead and state it, and let's see what the community decides. I am prepared to review the evidence and change my opnion - and I hope so are you.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, I wish you took more care when equating your pet troll with one of Top 100 most active Wikipedians ever. You may compare one of my today's edits - this, or this, or this, or this - with Molobo's contributions or your own. Every day my new articles are getting linked from the Main Page, whereas Molobo hasn't written a new article in his life. You may have noted that I never compared you with Molobo, although your nationalist quest has much in common. Once again, I repeat that this rabid anti-Ghirlandajo crusade is not going to win you any points. --Ghirlandajo 21:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, once more, be sure that nobody's denying your massive productivity. It's your lack of sense of wiki community that causes the problems. Why don't you reconsider it and try to do something about it if so many people are complaining ? Does it not occur to you that they may be right ? --Lysy ^(talk) 23:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I said anything unfair - I simply was not aware that you were not aware of the RFC against Molobo. Please have a look at the evidence that Alx-pl sedulously collected. If you really have not noticed any of Molobo's problematic edits and comments, you are in for a surprise. --Thorsten1 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I knew he was blocked for 3RR several times, but I was not aware of other serious problems. I will take a look at the evidence now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Should it be renamed partitions of the PLC? Please comment there. It is not as bad idea as I have thought at first. Your comments would be much appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Google Books overwhelmingly favours Partitions of Poland over Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. (190 books vs :4 books). That settles the question for me. Balcer 18:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am at the moment abstaining. And please comment (or copy your comments) there. PS. I did the calculation and got the same results :) Nonetheless, Irpen makes an interesting case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Balcer. This attempt to rename the article appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Appleseed 19:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever gets to vote there, please read the discussion carefully. We can think it over thoroughly and only then get to voting. Listing at WP:RM was premature since it will bring in people who have little idea of the complexity of the issue. The current misleading WP:RM summary (see my explanation on why it is misleading), would make wiki-editors unaware of all compexities of the issue to vote fastly without getting into it. I say, either withdraw the WP:RM listing for now, or correct the misleading summary. No one is going to move the article without discussion and AndriyK isn't around these topics with his favorite irreversible move tricks . --Irpen 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting is in full swing and the five-day deadline is almost upon us, so cast your votes. Appleseed (Talk) 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

On Polish Wikipedia we are trying to decide on the most correct translation of terms describing the units of local government in the United States. Any comments would be welcome. See pl:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt amerykańskie miejscowości i podział terytorialny. Balcer 16:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You maybe interested in checking the recent history of List of Poles and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote who thinks that e.g. Artur Rubinstein was not a Pole.--SylwiaS | talk 23:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) BTW how about archiving some of the messages here?--SylwiaS | talk 23:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Are the wives of the overlords/Dukes of Kraków during the period fragmentation considered queens consort? For example, Agnes of Babenberg. Appleseed (Talk) 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No they are considered duchesses consort :) --Ghirlandajo 16:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Duchesses consort" appears to be a valid term, but it's not widely used. Should I create a new Category:Polish duchesses consort, or just use Category:Polish queens consort?

Why not use plain "consort" in all cases? It works for persons in all stations, male and female. Both "Queen" and "Duchess" is superfluous in the expression. logologist 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the text of the article--I'm trying to populate Category:Polish queens consort. Appleseed (Talk) 01:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO Duchess and Queen are different terms and deserve separate cats. We have the same problem with Category:Russian tsarinas. Neither Sophia Paleologue nor Elena Glinskaya fit into the category, although both might have been called tsarinas by foreign observers such as Herberstein. --Ghirlandajo 09:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the Polish organization "Union of Sibiryaks", Polish deportees in Siberian Gulags? mikka (t) 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In Polish ? Związek Sybiraków. --Lysy ^(talk) 00:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've come across references in WP that say Henryk Walezy abdicated. My understanding is that he never renounced the throne--formally or informally--but that he simply abandoned it. Would you agreed that "abandoned the throne" is a better term? Appleseed (Talk) 15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Space Cadet 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

After several weeks of inactivity, this has became a hot and somewhat controversial topic. More opinions welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is in a wretched condition. Please do something to improve. --Ghirla | talk 10:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[17] Incidentally, in the article Warsaw uprising an editor had taken the liberty earlier of being *NPOV* enough to call the fighters in the Warsaw Uprising as "heroes". Yes, it was our friend Witkacy. Nice to see your influences.

Jak widać na Wiki nazwanie Powstańców Warszawskich bohaterami to już ciężkie przewinienie... Miłe...Ciągle da się odkryć coś nowego... --Molobo 01:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Care to translate? And maybe you'd like to present the whole quote. Sciurinæ 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, Molobo, could you tell me, apparently the accused, what you've written above? Or did you lose your memory of the English language too, the same way you lost your memory of your calls-for-justice-and-the-German-media sentence on talk:Anti- German sentiment? This is what people call defamation, and the way I know you and against the background of similar actions by you, on Lech Kaczyński and Anti-German sentiment, I doubt it is accidental. The reason why you chose to call for support here is not a compliment but an insult to those here, since the straight-forwardness of your POV-pushing in the said articles, which my statement indicated and the version history of those articles will never forget, implies that you believe the people here will put POV-pushing before constructive help for Wikipedia and support you rather than condemn your efforts. Sciurinæ 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sciurinæ thanks for your concern. Since you take time to enquire about me and engage in discussion. Could you be friendly enough to answer my questions posted to you long time ago[18] about why you deleted information on Nazi atrocities in Poland [19],or why you are erasing information about Nuremberg Trial[20], could you also tell me why you believe mass murder of African people in one of the first genocide of XX century is irrelevent to history in your opinion[21]? Thanks in advance. I would direct the conversation into my talk page, but you would probably protest.--Molobo 16:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Changing the topic, eh? And to ensure that, personal attacks so I've to defend myself, thus further distracting from the issue. And not only that. As I read above, you were accused of demagogy. Good description, actually, of your attempts to woo people emotionally. Your three denouncements have nothing to do with my statement and are only to evade. Now to personally defend myself, the first (topic:Germanisation) was just a complete revert of your edits. The children-sentence was not the reason. You know that. And it was the only time I reverted this. Oh, surely you're not guilty of reverting entirely without considering whether some detail was true or not. When did you do it the last time? Yesterday. "Historic", "Commission", indirect speech. By the way, I did once comment myself on my "crime", but anyway you're eager to further use it as propaganda against me. So watch out, or in the end the "crime" can be used in certain contexts against you, Molobo. Second charge: my reverts against your insistance on the criticsm against ... I don't know who it was, only that you revert Alexbulg, who is on all account more reliable in terms of neutrality. If you can convince him, not revert him, that is fine by me. My third charge was actually answered by me on talk:Germany and I'm still convinced it is out of proportion and out of place in the context there, okee? Anyway, I need to end the comment: there's still a defamation to revert. Shame on you, the article Warsaw Uprising wants to go on being a featured article. Sciurinæ 21:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Pojawił się nowy użytkownik który wprowadza kontrowersyjne zmiany do artykułów o Polskiej tematyce: [22]. Komentarze dla przykładu: [23] ''Piotrus seems to be a polish extremist, his edits are propaganda pure and against any proofed historical fact and of course against any logic... if you change that back to his version you support his propagandry... i am very familiar with this theme but i really have not the time to fight in ever articel dealing with polish history with this polish extremists who have a lot of energy and time to change every article back to their propaganda crap...

Ja na razie nie dotykam. --Molobo 15:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll be watching this guy. Kosmak aka Space Cadet 15:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I asked Nightstallion for help, but this is a clear troll/flame. I think we should ignore his talk rants and revert him (although the German names he adds may be kept as translations, after all, German has as much right as Poles to have the name for the events that affected both nationalities in their articles).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to create a Wikipedia article about my great-great-great grandmother, the Polish author Agnieszka Lipska Baranowska. Unfortunately, the only source that I have been able to find is here, but it is in Polish. Would someone from this community be willing to translate it for me? Or could you direct me to where I can make a translation request? Thank you. Elonka 20:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume Babelfish et al. does it's usuall terrible job on Polish? I am sure we can help you with that :) Wikipedia:Translations is not that active, but may be a useful link for some other lanagues translations if you need them (German section is pretty good there).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) I should also mention that she is on your List of Poles, as is her grandson (my great-grandfather) Rodryg Dunin. I look forward to seeing them added to the wikipedia! Elonka 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Agnieszka Baranowska - done. Merry XMAS (if a bit late).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take it as a Christmas present, birthday present (12/29) and New Year's present all rolled into one. Thank you! I'm sending out an email to many of my Polish relatives (we were scattered by World War II to locations from the United States to Brazil to Australia) to let them know that there is now a biography that they can all read. Dziękuję. :) Elonka 01:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As in the question. Which one should we use (I know in Polish it's Piotr, what about other Slavic languages?)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you check here Peter. There's no Pyotr btw. I think the Latin transcription should always be with "i" like Italian Pietro. BTW I like the Finnish Pekka :) --SylwiaS | talk 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Attention from less involved parties, that is non-Romanians/non-Ukrainians is needed at Bukovina article where the argument goes around inclusion of well-referenced info. Please see article's recent talk and edit hisotry. --Irpen 06:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The article on Alexander Suvorov claims the massacre of civilians in Warsaw is only alledged and contributors from Russia who added this(Fisenko and Ghirlandajo) have insisted on it claiming Poles claim it happend (as part of their nationalist mythology. Comments proving or disproving such opinion are welcomed. --Molobo 10:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Provided proper references. It worked in the Katyń 'denial' affair, it should work here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments appreciated, I'd like to FAC this article soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Przeglądnąc strone: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2006/january/january1/default.htm?homelink=docs Są tam czasem interesujące informacje o Polsce i wydarzeniach historycznych. --Molobo 23:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

While archiving the old messages I've read about Google books and gmail. It's very useful, indeed, but needs an invitation. If anyone doesn't have it yet, and would like to have, please let me know. I'll send the invitation.--SylwiaS | talk 00:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it finally decided how we should translate names like: powiat, województwo, gmina, osada itp.?--SylwiaS | talk 01:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a discussion about the terminology for those interested. Olessi 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Some editors insist that the attempted mass murder of the Polish village of Koniuchy that resulted in death of at least 32 people including women and children be renamed from Koniuchy Massacre to Koniuchy Incident(Similar attempts have been made by the involved editors to rename Katyn Massacre into Incident) Please state your view on this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koniuchy_massacre --Molobo 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the article on Polish mathematician Marian Rejewski on Featured Article Candidates. Please add any comments/criticism/review to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marian Rejewski. — Matt Crypto 00:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Awesome job, Matt, Logologist and others who have worked on this article!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We have, as a subcategory of Category:History of Poland, the Category:People's Republic of Poland. I think we should add a category for each era of Poland (based on the Template:Polish statehood. Similarly, we have as a subcategory of Category:Polish people the Category:Polish World War II people - we should create categories for other eras as well. Also, note that we have a Category:Polish historical images, with a subcategory of Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth historical images - again, relevant historical categories should be created and used. Corresponding Commons category is commons:Category:History of Poland and commons:Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (for obvious reasons there is no need to create image specific cats on commons :>).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I kind of like having a single "History of Poland" category. I agree that it's cluttered, but right now it would benefit most from a proper categorization of all the biographical stubs. For example, the category is full of stubs like this. Appleseed (Talk) 03:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, for this we need subcategories. Butigeidis should be moved out of 'history of Poland' category, and into 'Kingdom of Poland people' or something like this category.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Polish categories could do with some cleanup. I'm continually confused about which categories are available, and what should and shouldn't go in each category, and even when I do research on it, I'm always finding new categories that I was unaware of. Would it be useful to make a master list category (like under Category:Poland) that lists all categories that have anything to do with Poland? Or should we work on making that category have only "gateway" categories that link to other more specific categories? I'd also recommend that we add some description on some of the category pages that list what types of things should be in that category. For example, Piotrus, I saw that you removed "History of Poland" from an article, with the comment that the category isn't for people, but there seem to be plenty of other people in that category. Do we have documentation or consensus anywhere on how these categories are supposed to be used? Elonka 08:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto! I'm confused about the categories too. Well, to tell the truth I usually put whatever and wait for Piotr to change it. So making it clear would save Piotr a lot of time. :)--SylwiaS | talk 09:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are some rules at Wikipedia:Categories and related pages. The most important rule of thumb is to use only the most specific subcategories - this is why if we have a category that belongs to the category History of Poland, there is no need to stick history of Poland in addition to it. I admit, however, that from time to time I wish there was a Wiki option that would allow us to display articles and subcategories of lower level - but hopefully it is something that will be included in the future release of MediaWiki software. Definetly we should add descriptions to various categories - so feel free to do so with any category you are using. And soon, if nobody else wants to do it, I'll propose new categoroies to be created as described above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that people shouldn't be placed in the History of Poland category; it should be enough that they're in one or more of the "Polish people" subcategories. And while we're on the subject, I think we should be conservative with creating "people" categories. It makes sense to categorize a person by office (e.g. prime ministers, kanclerz), occupation (e.g. poets, queens consort), or achievement (saints, Nobel prize winners), but I think that wishy-washy, awkward categories like "Natives of the Lesser Poland Voivodship", "World War II people", "Polish patrons of arts" only serve to clutter up WP. Appleseed (Talk) 14:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. logologist|Talk 21:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new categories

Proposed by --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• subs to Category:History of Poland
  • Category:Prehistory of Poland (until 966)
  • Category:Kingdom of Poland (966-1569) - I see no point to divide it into Piasts and Jagiellons
  • Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1795)
  • Category:Poland under partitions or Category:Partitoned Poland? (1795-1918)
  • Category:Second Polish Republic (1918-1939)
  • Category:History of Poland during Second World War is a bit long, so Category:History of Poland during IIWW may be better, as I'd like to have a category not only for Category:Polish Secret State but also for things outside Poland, like Polish armies in the West and East - unless we simply divide everything into Polish Secret State and Category:Military history of Poland during World War II? Period is of course 1939-1945

If "Poland under Partitions (1795-1918)," without "History of," then why not "Poland during World War II"? logologist|Talk 21:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Overall I like the idea. And I agree with logologist that "Poland during World War II" would be good. Or perhaps "Poland in World War II" or "Poland 1939-1945". However, "Poland under partititions" is a bit vague for me. Perhaps we should add the years to all the categories? like: Category:Poland prehistory (pre-966), Category:Kingdom of Poland (966-1569), Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1795-1918), (etc.)
That will make it more clear for people who are making a new article to tell which category they should use. Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, so Category:Poland during IIWW sounds quite good. Years would make them longer, so I'd vote against using years, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe adding the dates to cathegories' descriptions would solve the problem?--SylwiaS | talk 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd assumed that "IIWW" was a typo on your part, Piotrus. The correct category name would be Category:Poland during WWII, yes? Elonka 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Poland during World War II": "In" suggests actual war-related activity, which may not always be the focus. If "World War II" is abbreviated, clarity would require a space between "WW" and "II" — "WW II." logologist|Talk 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Category:People's Republic of Poland (1945-1989)
  • Category:Third Polish Republic or just Category:Poland for 1989+

• subs to Category:Polish people
  • Category:Polish prehistoric people

Is this going to be a really large category? If not, I'd suggest just incorporating it into "Poland prehistory". Ditto with most of the others... Since we're splitting out the history regions above, I think it would be appropriate to include an article about a person into the category of their era, rather than having a separate "people" category unless it really needs splitting out. Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

While I don't expect this category to be too broad, I definetly don't think we should have only one category for things (events) and people. People should have their own, separate category.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Category:Kingdom of Poland people
  • Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth people (note that Category:Polish nobility is both broader and not completly inclusive (there were some famous non-szlachta members then as well)
  • Category:Partitions of Poland people (not happy with the name...)
  • Category:Second Polish Republic people
  • Category:Polish World War II people
  • Category:People's Republic of Poland people
  • Category:Third Polish Republic people or just leave them in Polish people category?

• subs to Category:Polish historical images - in my view the subcategories should gather pictures OF a given historical period, not FROM - what do you think?
  • Category:Polish prehistorical historical images (Biskupin, etc.)
  • Category:Kingdom of Poland historical images
  • Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth historical images
  • Category:Partitions of Poland historical images
  • Category:Second Polish Republic historical images
  • Category:Poland during Second World War historical images (name...?)
  • Category:People's Republic of Poland historical images
  • Category:Third Polish Republic historical images or other name?

Other:

• created Category:Boroughs of Poland, a subcategory to Category:Boroughs and encompasing Category:Boroughs of Warsaw, Category:Boroughs of Gdańsk (needs to be actually filled) and Category:Boroughs of Kraków for now, others will surely join. I am not sure if borough is the best name for it, but it was used for the Warsasw category, and has an ubercategory. I'll leave the (re)naming to the Geography project people :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Borough," to a person not living in one, can be pretty archaic-sounding ("Rotten borough"). I like "district" (e.g., Warsaw's "Żoliborz district"). logologist|Talk 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, to avoid conflict with other Wikipedia regional categories, shouldn't we add the word "Poland" or "Polish" to all of these? Instead of Category:Boroughs of Krakow, use Category:Boroughs of Krakow, Poland. Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Many cities in the world call their subdivisions "districts," e.g. Antwerp, Hong Kong, Vienna and cities in China and the United States. logologist|Talk 23:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Infrastructure of Poland do we want to keep this empty cat? If so, maybe the non-natural categories and articles from Category:Geography of Poland can be moved there (like Category:Cities in Poland, Category:Mines in Poland or article Reservoirs and dams in Poland? I have made the Infra... cat a subcat of geography of Poland for now. Comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth keeping, for trains and planes and automobiles and factories and whatnot. Elonka 22:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Category deletion / renaming

• Category:Polish Navy destroyers - empty Emax artifact, I deleted it, there is a larger cat of Category:Destroyers of Poland anyway --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Category:Polish society - unless sb can provide a clear definition for this categoty, I think it should be deleted --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we decide if a man is from one category or another? I mean if someone lived and did important things in two periods. Do we add him to both?--SylwiaS | talk 21:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I still feel we're trying too hard to create additional categories for Polish people. The fact the names for these categories are long, awkward ("Partitions of Poland people"), and imprecise ("Kingdom of Poland people"--which of the three Kingdoms?) suggests to me that this is a solution in search of a problem. Why don't we just try to clean up our current categories? Appleseed (Talk) 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I second the idea. logologist|Talk 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't really see how it would work. There are interlinks in articles that allow to find all the needed information about the period. Grouping people like that will be awkward. What a person who died in 1710 has to do with a person who was born in 1740? There are biographies in the articles that give all the needed information.--SylwiaS | talk 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To subdivide the History of Poland category, I propose we use the naming scheme from Template:History of Poland, which avoids the awkwardness and imprecision of the "statehood" naming scheme.

• Category:Prehistory of Poland (until 966)
• Category:History of Poland (966–1370)
• Category:History of Poland (1370–1572)
• Category:History of Poland (1572–1795)
• Category:History of Poland (1795–1918)
• Category:History of Poland (1918–1939)
• Category:History of Poland (1939–1945)
• Category:History of Poland (1945–1989)
• Category:History of Poland (1989–present)

You'll notice that I made some changes to the years. I believe the death of Kazimierz Wielki, and not the Union of Krewo, to be a better dividing point between PotP and PotJ. Also, I prefer 1572, rather than 1569, as the divider between the PotJ and PLC. However, I'm still not sure if 1989 or 1990 is the better year to divide between PRL and 3PR. I plan to eventually adjust the dates in the exiting articles to match these changes. What do you think? Appleseed (Talk) 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the categories are ok, but I'd like to keep dates the same as in the corresponding articles (for consistency). If you can make a good argument to changing the chronology scheme (again...) then I won't mind, but until this is done I'd suggest to keep the dates as they are today. Of course, in the case of 1569 vs 1572 there is no good answer so either we toss the coin or just forget about this and go with what we have now (because this is going to come again and again, year after a year...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have begun a cleanup of List of szlachta - see it's talk page for the results of a very nifty bot helper. Note that currently this category contains some non-biographies: families (which I propose to move to Category:Polish noble families, see Talk:List of szlachta for details) and 'other' stuff (like Żupan), which I think should be moved to the PLC related category we are discussing above. Can we now agree on the categories names so I can go on with the cleanup?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)