User talk:Appleseed

Hello Appleseed, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for your work on templates, cats and other issues. Any idea how to improve the Template:Culture of Poland sidebar template? For starers, I am sure we can find a better pic... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. You may want to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization if you haven't found this place yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when removing categories. Categories are a useful tool to crosslink. Category structure doesn't necessarily have to be a pyramid.

Shoefly 00:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be interested in this nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As to Three Bards - I replied at the article's talk page. Halibutt 12:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out to me that deleting redirects and moving pages should be done through community consensus at WP:RM. While I think it is an overdose of bureaucracy to have to use it all the time, this seem to be the rule.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's at least several months old. Maybe it is not obligatory, but I was advised to seek consensus during the Talk:Międzymorze discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I could, but actually in this case (List of Polish heads of state since 1918) I think that this list may benefit from expantion with info on first secretaries of Polish United Workers' Party and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about copying the current content to president list, restoring other leaders to the head of state lists, and making the president list a subarticle of it? Maybe we can ask for more opinions from our noticeboard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A proszę :) A przy okazji zdzwilem się, że masz tak pustą userpage - nawet nie używasz Wikipedia:Babel? To przydatna rzecz.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure some of this is available at Wikipedia:Tools and Wikipedia:Scripts, but I have not used them myself. If you cannot find them there, try asking about them at the relevant talk pages.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to add Category:Peace treaties to articles tagged with Category:Polish peace treaties, there is a rule that only the most specific categories should be used unless there is some compelling reason to use the more general one's as well - so you may want to revert yourself. Also, try using edit summaries - so we can know what you did without having to check your contribs (I know your edits are good, but sometimes I would like to know what you did - to satifify my curiosity - without having to click through history). Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Each subcategory is visible in the parent category page, so I think it is unnecessary. I am trying to find any rule in Manual of Style or Categorization FAQ to prove or disprove, but seems I cannot. I won't revert you, I just think it is unnecessary.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Categorisation FAQ#Missing QA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I would love to, but unfortunately, I am not an Admin. I will see what I can do though. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. For the record, you do not need to be an Admin to welcome people. You could even do it yourself. There are common welcoming templates at {{welcome}}, {{welcome2}}, {{welcome3}}, and maybe a few others. It's just nice to welcome people. I am sorry I couldn't help you out this time, but if you ever have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. If I can't help you, I can always point you in the right direction. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be gone now. Feel free to report it to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for quickest admins' assistance. Btw, can you consider adjusting your sig so it would have a direct link back to your talk page?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Signature#Customizing_your_signature.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and moved. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait with Zbigniew for a few days. Perhaps sb will come up with a better idea.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Partitions of Poland you argue that PoP is more common. But just look what you did six hours ago: moving Henry II of Poland (770 google hits [1]) to Henryk II the Pious (84 googles [2]). Do you see any logic here? Renata3 00:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy. You really contradict yourself. Just in the post on my talk page: "I don't believe Google results are the answer to everything" and later "I provide the Google results to prove..." Now, save the excuses, we have more serious stuff to work on.

PoP is a valid term. But not for the content of the article. It has a much broader meaning (all the WWI & WWII). Disambig page would work perfectly in my mind. You said yourself that nobody argues that PoPLC is the correct term. But people rarely use it since it's 1. long, 2. Poland dominated the PLC and people know Poland better than Lithuania, 3. for a long time nobody gave a darn about political correctness - just favor the strongest and you are gonna be ok, 4. it is not quite agreed how to name it (PLC, Ro2N, Rzescpospolita (or whatever the spelling), or something). I remember in my school we named PLC Rzescpospolita, and then new books came and I saw ATR and I was thinking what is that. And that was Republic of Both Nations (Abieju Tautu Respublika). So yeah, Poland is shorter & more convenient and thus used more widely, but that is a shortcut (with several meanings), not the right thing. But we have redirects (or disambig pages)! Wiki is not paper! Renata3 02:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Henry II the Pious seem to get the most: 890 [3] :) Renata3 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jadwiga was a queen (and a remarkable one) before she was a saint. Besides, there's a much earlier Saint Jadwiga (for whom Jadwiga had great respect) who has priority to that position. logologist 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jadwiga got moved by User:Mareczek9. (I had feared she had been moved by you.)

By the way, do you think the Augusts need the epithets? Some of my sources just call them August II and August III. logologist 07:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Oda von Haldensleben" article needs to be deleted, and the "Ote" article (which is the more complete one) needs to be renamed "Oda von Haldensleben" (if the queen indeed usually goes by "Oda," rather than "Ote," in Polish). Do you know how such operations are done?

I've revised and expanded the related "Dagome iudex" article. logologist|Talk 04:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be up your alley, but very few people have came through RfC I posted about History of the World, and there is a slow but pointless revert war there (see Talk:History_of_the_World#Graph_straw_poll), so I am now down to asking fellow Wikipedians to take a look if you have time and will.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am no lone wolf, I don't go in face of opposition :) To be more specific: people: yes, they have enough cats for now. History and images: no, I will eventually fight for some scheme for events, simply putting them by year category is not enough, and cat History of Poland is way to bloated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

copied your proposal and my reply to Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else seems really interested in this, my vote is to use the same dates as on the current history of Poland artices and template. If you disagree, suggest moving them first at our noticeboard, once we decide on whether to move them or not we will create the relevant categories. Sounds good? Also, note that we have Category:Years in Poland. Perhaps some sort of standarization would be in order.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's probably an overkill - at least for now. I think that the articles in that section should be moved to your new, larger categories. But whether we should delete them... I don't know. I'd expect they may see use in few years, as Wikipedia 'grows up' to them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion you go, then :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are creating more categories - please let me know so I can use them :) On a related note, I am trying to figure out what's the difference between Category:People's Republic of Poland and Category:History of Poland (1945–1989).I'd suggest moving the articles from PRoP to History, adding categories it currently has (Communist states | Alleged puppet states) to the main article and listing it on CfD.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some categories are really a mess, and WWII compared to them is really lean :) Actually I don't mind having a military subcat for that period, as there are things which would not fall into it (łapanka or Auschwitz, for example).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first time I have heard about it in any language. I suggest taking it to the noticeboard, plus Halibutt would be the person who may know more about Polish IIWW cavalry.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is simply no easy way built into software to migrate categories yet. You may want to visit the Wikipedia:Category, they have some FAQ and specialist there should know more then me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, could you mark cat. changes as minor? Today my watchlist got completely blocked by zillions of diffs to look at - all changes consisting of cat change... Halibutt 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - what was the reason for this edit? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 15:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. AvB ÷ talk 22:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. For sake of continuity, I've left a response at my own talk page. I appreciate all the thoughtful work you've done on Polish subjects. logologist|Talk 02:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read this, did You? Radomil talk 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not going to change it back for now, but I want to consider all "for" and "against" both solutions. Perhaps it is more 'elegant" but is it more usefull? Radomil talk 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like {{Warsaw Uprising}} but for our other large FAs, especially Polish-Soviet War and Polish September Campaign. Do you think they would be useful, and since you did some of our best templates, perhaps you'd like to design them?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you tag files as CFD, could you please also list them on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion? Without the listing, they are not fully submitted for deletion, and the process does not go anywhere, leaving the categories to just sit there in a limbo. - TexasAndroid

Same goes for RfD which need to be listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. I have listed Battle of Raszyn (1920) for you. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! – JLaTondre 19:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking :) that this category may actually be useful. Just as we have divided People's Republic of Poland from History of Poland (1945-1989), so their categories may be different. PRP category could be used for things that are specific to the country as the institution. I came up with this idea when I thought that articles like Administrative division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Offices_in_the_Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth may benefit from Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, instead of just being in Category:History of Poland (1569–1795). What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to think about people. It may be worthwile to ask on our noticeboard about it. As far as Ruthenian princes go, see my post in the noticeboard where I listed some people who probably should be removed from that cat.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moze przywrocilbys szablon kanclerzy? Skasowano go kiedys bo byl za duzy, ale jak bys chcial go rozbic... Mam w planach liste urzednikow staropolskich geograficzno-chronologiczną ([[4]]), wiec w zasadzie takich szablonow potrzebne byloby kilkaset :D Powaznie, zastanawiam się jednak czy nie lepiej byłoby korzystać z successionbox (jak Template:Primate of Poland): zamiast wklejac do kazdego artykulu liste wszystkich urzednikow, mozna by sie zadowolic poprzednim, nastepca i datami. No i jakims ładnym godłem :) Co o tym sadzisz?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Template:Black Brigade and Template:PolishSovietWarNav. As for 'to do', what about szlachta's clothing (żupan, kontusz, etc.)? You may want to add infoboxes (like the Template:Infobox Polish Soldiers or Template:Szlachciura) and campaignboxes for Polish wars too. And then are the talk pages templates, like Polish CoTW or Military of Poland Wikiproject ones. And I guess Template:Primate of Poland and the other bishop templates (I think they all have one) would go in as well?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check also Template:User WPMILHIST Polish military history task force. Could you perhaps make others for History of Poland and Geography of Poland projects?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about User:Halibutt's moving of the Wielkopolska Uprisings to "Greater Poland Uprisings"? It jars on me.

I agree with you: we should use English equivalents for general Polish terms, e.g. "chancellor" for kanclerz. On the other hand, I'm opposed to "translating" proper names, including geographic ones such as Wielkopolska. (The only translation of a Polish geographic name that I'm still tolerating, for now, is of Warszawa as "Warsaw," simply as acknowledgment of the world's inertia.) logologist|Talk 09:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to copy the same message twice, so if you could take a look at User_talk:Logologist#Formatting, I'd appreciate your input too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm deleting the redirect from Battle of Raszyn (1920) to Battle of Radzymin (1920). It seems that Raszyn and Radzymin are different places in Poland, aren't they? My question is: was there at all a battle at Raszyn in 1920? What links here shows a lot of articles linking to Battle of Raszyn (1920); should these all be changed to Battle of Radzymin (1920)? I have to say, I didn't even know that there was a war between Russia and Poland then, so I have no idea how to proceed. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might like to vote at Talk:Wielkopolska Uprising regarding proposal to move "Wielkopolska Uprising" to "Greater Poland Uprising." logologist|Talk 03:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your energetic and eloquent intervention.

Have you see the "Wojewodztwa" vote on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland? logologist|Talk 15:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You might want to know that the good ol' Wikipedia:WikiProject Polish Army has been restarted, this time as WP:POLMIL, a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. As the main tasks of the previous WikiProject have been fulfilled (both Polish-Bolshevik and Polish Defensive wars are now featured), we might want to start yet another quest for some holy grail. Any ideas? Halibutt 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! As I'm rather a specialist on 20th century I won't be able to help much, but there are lots of people with enough knowledge on the matter. How about adding the info to Project's talk? Halibutt 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing resitance to the application of Wladyslaw Jagiello's name of Jogaila, prior to the Union of Krewo, on his talk page March 9th and 10th. I have since corrected it, in the appropriate sections of the History of Poland. Dr. Dan 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I was curious about your inclusion of Edith Stein as a Polish Saint, and inquired about it some time back. It seems a little bit of a stretch, don't you think? Dr. Dan 01:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply, is on my talk page. Dr. Dan 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your moving of "Polish capture of Kiev", please do not move articles unilaterally. Propose first at talk and wait a bit for responses. I am not saying that all moves should be listed at WP:RM, but just to informally broach the suggestion at talk and wait for a couple of days is the right way to do it. Let others involved with the article have their say. Thanks, --Irpen 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we keep the word "rokosz" (since it was a fairly unique institution), when necessary pluralize it as "rokoszes," and change the category to "Category:Polish rebellions." logologist|Talk 10:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of adopting Template:Russianterm and creating a Template:Polishterm for such words?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sound would be nice, and it would also serve as a kind of repository for Polish names (so we could more easily see what needs to be translated and what's not).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to list all campaignboxes (lists of battles...) in Category:Battles of Poland. 2 are already there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice to have all the boxes in one place, kind of like the List of Polish battles article. If not there (or in addition to), we could add them to the List of Polish wars and redirect the battle list there. Such a list would be nicer than the normal bulleted list, don't you think so?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a template for Polish bishops, upgrading successionbox to something nicer, preferably looking like the box used in pl wiki (see pl:Kajetan Sołtyk for example).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As a recent editor of World War II Polish ship categories, I wanted to invite you to join in on my cleanup effort of Category:World War II ships of Poland and its sub categories. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but why did you take the Wicher-class article out of Category:Destroyer classes and put the category in instead? Of the 37 members of Category:Destroyer classes, Wicher is the only one listed this way. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesołych Świąt! Any luck on the Edith Stein question? Dr. Dan 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if you removed it, since you are the author of the article, and added it in the first place. Later you can readd it, if appropriate. Seems more logical and fair to me. Dr. Dan 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC) p.s. if you leave it in, it wouldn't bother me a lot either. There are a lot of similar additions in Wikipedia that need to be looked at, besides her. Dr. Dan 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Frankly speaking I don't think it's a good idea, as it's easier to add one category for the entire campaign than several categories separately, but if you're going to take care of all the articles, then it's fine with me. //Halibutt 17:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A my wlasnie z Balcerem i Halibuttem urzadzamy konferencje na GG. Bardzo polecam korzystanie z GG!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Appleseed! I noticed you were removing the categorization spelling of various localities in Poland (ie "Category:Towns in Poland|Sroda Slaska" to just "Category:Towns in Poland"). In case you are unaware, Wikipedia's current categorization spelling system puts diacritics at the end of the alphabet, which means that by default Środa Śląska would be categorized not under "S", but in "Ś" which comes after "Z" (see [5]). Categorizing the article as "|Sroda Slaska" alphabetizes it as an "S" article, while the proper spelling with diacritics is listed at Category:Towns in Poland. Olessi 23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of an official policy to categorize without diacritics, but it is an informal style that I usually see for lists where diacritics are sometimes the first letter in a name (Category:Cities and towns in the Czech Republic, Category:Cities in Croatia, Category:Towns in Croatia, Category:Cities and towns in Slovakia, etc.). It's not the ideal situation, but it makes things easier for an uninformed English-speaker who probably would not think to look for Łomża after Z, which is how the current software would depict it, unfortunately. Olessi 04:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olessi is, of course, correct. Fix them. Gene Nygaard 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSW article will be featured on the main page in a few days. Do you think you can work on Template:Polish-Soviet War and make it more 'pretty'? I was thinking of adding Polish Eagle and Soviet Union symbols, and playing with colors, but you are better at that then me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I have no information ATM about Livonian War. As for the template, well: better late then never :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All information about discrimination of national minorities in Prussia was deleted. Information that Poles were subject to discrimination in Prussian state have been stated as "historical revisionism" by a German user[6]. All information about this presented on discussion page was either ignored or claimed that it is a Polish POV because Poles feel unsecure living on others land, despite the fact that sources were non-Polish. Please help in achieving NPOV in the article --Molobo 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All information about the role of Lebensraum deleted from information about goals of Nazis deleted, Poland and Warsaw according to the user are part of "Greater Germany" : [7] User doubts Hitler wanted war and Lebensraum in East and pursuses changes to indicate he wanted peace with Poland: [8] Hitler wanted to settle territorial issues but Poland didn't trust him: [9] No comments. I even went as far to give links but the user deletes them as POV. --Molobo 09:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dear Appleseed, you cannot destroy work of others by such revert you just did at polish mmonarchs' list. It is not regarded as good faith on your part. Such comes near to vandalism, and may cross that line. This behavior tastes like you want to possess that page, and it is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Pages are intended for development here. People need to work together. Shilkanni 13:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Appleseed! Thanks for the clarification and correction. You already had Treaty of Kraków/Krakow redirecting there, so I'll add a mention of it to the article at the relevant space. One question however... The article states the Homage occurred on 10 February and you said the Treaty commenced two days beforehand.

• My copy of Desmond Seward's The Monks of War says Albert signed the Treaty on 8 April and paid homage to the king the next day (9 April).
• William Urban's The Teutonic Knights: A Military History dates the oath of allegiance to 10 April. *This German link says Albert gave his oath on 9 April.
• The German wiki's de:Preußische Huldigung article says 10 February, while its de:1525 page says 10 April.
• The Polish pl:Hołd pruski article seems to indicate April (Kwiecień?) and the dates 8/10, but I don't speak Polish...

Any ideas of which source has it right? Olessi 00:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investigating. I'll try to add the sources for the date within the next few days. Olessi 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support for my recent contributions. I'm not sure how much free time I'll have in the near future, but I'm planning on adding and correcting information on the Northern Crusades (especially relating to the Wends/Polabian Slavs and the Prussians). I'll certainly try to assist you with 14th and 15th century battles if I have any information in my books. Olessi 00:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well for your kind words. I got so involved not only because I understand the implications for Poland (and the sane reasoning of Polish contributors), but also because the counter-proposal, which rests between sophistry and sheer imbecility, would have immense, unchecked, and unnatural effects in countless other areas. But, sadly, we seem to have touched a nerve of the Americana monomania... Dahn 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zauwazylem ze gdy tlumaczysz artyky z pl wiki na en, to w polskich nie dodajesz interwiki w pl wiki do en wersji. Poprawilem to w kilku ostatnich artykulach, moglbys przejrzec reszte swoich tlumaczen? Dzieki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prawda - zapomniałem o nich - ale widać im się nie śpieszy. A ręcznie dodać w nowym artykule to sekunda.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving articles to names that are obscure or unheard of in the English world. This is Englsih Wikipedia, not Polish Wikipedia where certain Saxon Electors may be referred to as "the Saxon" there. Charles 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The move is in accordance with naming conventions and therefore may be moved, which it was. Please leave it where it is. Note nothing was done to August II the Strong because that is what he is best known by. The case is different for Augustus III of Poland. Charles 18:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus III is a Polish monarch with an Anglo-German style name with no diacritics in it. Common usage states that this is the form of his name.

Regardless of the vote, it would be moved to the location I put it at. I wouldn't contest any of your moves that are covered by convention, so you must realize that this one is covered by convention. Charles 18:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I chime in with Charles in this question about Augustus III of Poland. Appleseed, please stop moving that page against the guideline clearly set at the Naming Convention for european nobility an royalty; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Non-compliance may lead to your blocking or even banning. Henq 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening an editor who has contributed more to the articles in question then you did. A naming guideline is just a guideline and if the editors working on the articles don't approve it, it is not binding, see also WP:IAR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying giving fire to an editor who feels that an uncommon name is acceptable for a monarch when a more common one is available. One may ignore all rules, however, moving away from a common name is not an improvement to Wikipedia. You should know that. Charles 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience, I will post here what I already wrote on your talk page: "I'm not saying your proposal is wrong. I'm simply asking you to engage the community by using WP:RM." Appleseed (Talk) 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than discussing if the proper name was unacceptable or not, you unilaterally moved it back without regard for English usage. I have been in many votes, whether agreeing or opposing, where action was taken to the opposite effect of the vote because of common English usage. Such is the case with Augustus III of Poland. Charles 20:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, I was accused of being sockpuppet or using them three or four times. Don't worry, as you likely realised such treatment of Polish editors happens often. --Molobo 20:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I also sometimes have little time. As to the events, well I experience such treatment all the time really since I am involved heavily in Polish related articles. I just hope they will be revealing to some editors. Cheers. --Molobo 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo for which I apologise. I meant to indicate Anatopism (talk · contribs) but made the mistake of doing two things at once, producing a mix-up over As. I unreservedly apologise for the mistake. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion if we should use the word liberate or not in articles regarding Soviet actions in WWII, the results could form a policy on the issue [10] --Molobo 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the discussion going to be held? Charles 00:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a case-by-case issue. I am not aware of the names of many national anthems without looking at the category, but those are so language-specific that they should be kept in their native forms unless there is a specified English variant. For instance, there is Pour l'Afrique et pour toi, Mali (For Africa and for you, Mali). While the song itself has a translation, I doubt one would sing it that way. It merely explains the meaning. The song itself exists in French. The naming of anthems is a delicate balance of meaning, translation and English usage (if any). Aside from placing every anthem at National anthem of... , this in particular is an issue I feel shouldn't have a naming convention or mass change made. They should be treated as all famous songs on Wikipedia are (left in their only language or official language). Charles 00:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is typically referred to in English by an "English" form of the name (with or without diacritics) then I believe that is the appropriate place for it. It varies a lot from anthem to anthem... I did a very quick Google seach and there is a fair bit of reference to "Dąbrowski's Mazurka", which I feel is a fairly acceptable title. It very much is a case by case issue. Charles 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more English results for "Mazurek Dabrowskiego", without the modified a, although it is almost a close run. I would support and prefer a move to Mazurek Dabrowskiego, but am not decided on Mazurek Dąbrowskiego, which, although is nearly identical, is not used as often. Charles 02:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure... For instance, ä and ae are the same thing in Google, but ä isn't equal to a in Google. It seems this is not the case for Polish letters, which are equal to their unmodified counterparts in Google. Do they constitute seperate letters or are they merely modified? For instance, the French alphabet is abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz, but there are letters such as é, â, ë, ç etc. I believe those are equal to e, a, e and c respectively in Google. Charles 02:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for asking. Shortly: my ear says that "the Dabrowski Mazurka" (definite article should not be in article name, but always when in sentences, "the" should be included) would be best in, how do I say that, "sounding like English". A subjective feeling, I admit. Advantage: you avoid that lousy genitive 's, which may be shitty to handle.

What is important in determining what name to use in English Wikipedia, is: what actually is used in English literature, texts and other encyclopedias. As far as I know, there is no other rule here for naming national anthems than the general rule "use English, use common name as used by English-speakers". Naming of royals and nobles certainly does not come into this (even if Dabrowski were a prince or something, it just is not used commonly in this name). When making a google check, I somehow found that any version with that diacritical a is much rarer than analogous version without diacritic. So that's common English usage. Suits me well, because I oppose unnecessary, and also too difficult, diacritics. But if some word is overwhelmingly used in English with diacritics, I would swallow my opposition. That is not the case with this - clearly, variants without diacritic are common. If you have respectable works of reference in English to use (such as Encyclopedia Britannica and others...) you may wish to cnsult what is used there.

Mazurka certainly is the term used for that part in english. And between "Dabrowski's.." and "Dabrowski Mazurka", somehow my google finds speak for the simpler one, without genitive. Shilkanni 11:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na przeniesienie na en wiki pl:Szablon:Dzieła Stanisława Lema. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a Category:Stanisław Lem novels, but I think we can also have a template - why not? Especially as then we could move the list of his works to a subarticle, and replace it with a nice template in the main article (I have now nominated it for GA status).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was just wondering if you can help me out. I got your link from my talk page.. There is an article written about Clairville, Ontario Its where i live.. Problem is whoever started the article spelled the name wrong. It should be Clairville Not Claireville. And im still new here i have no idea how to change the name .... Anyway.. thought you might be able to do something about it. Hubert Derus 23:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During a GA review of Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth one of the issues raised was that there are too many (ugly) list. I was thinking we could transform them into nice templates: template listing - about one for each section. We could also use those templates in articles like kanclerz. What do you think about that? Horizontal, vertical...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English "Metropolis Katowice" is translate = polish "Metropolia Katowice". Metropolia Katowice or Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny is name city un. LUCPOL 10:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have a good translation maily because it is not a popular word in everyday language. It is more or less exclusively used for the COA. But it does not mean "a chase" or "a pursuit." It describer a person, "a chaser," "a pursuer," "a charging knight." I personally prefer "charging knight" because it is descriptive: vytis means a knight, but not a regular knight - one in action. I don't think "chaser" makes much sense in English, I don't think this word is udes to describe a knight, a solder. "Pursuer," I think, is somewhat better, but I don't think it conveys the full meaning. But that's only my personal preferences. Renata 22:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you think it might be appropriate to put some note between the names of Bierut and Jaruzelski to note that they were not direct successors? Maybe "office abolished", "office superseded by Chairman of the Polish Council of State", or what have you. Just a thought–do tell me your opinion. Biruitorul 03:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appleseed, I agree that the template should be kept simple, which is why I only put two words in there, plus a link to the Council of State. I think that strikes an effective balance–it keeps things relatively straightforward, while readily providing useful information to English-language readers, most of whom are probably unfamiliar with that detail of Polish history. In sum: can those two words stay? Biruitorul 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, wonderful. Biruitorul 01:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia in Poland is Silesian Voivodeship, Lower Silesian Voivodeship and Opole Voivodeship, Lubusz Voivodeship but bound this voivodeships differentiate. Silesia in Poland is: Silesian Voivodeship (Silesia: near 50% - [11]), Lower Silesian Voivodeship (Silesia: near 95%), Opole Voivodeship (Silesia: near 95%), Lubusz Voivodeship (Silesia: near 20%). PS. Silesia is (likewise) land in Czech republic - Czech Silesia (Moravian-Silesian Region) and some county in Germany (parts Görlitz - Lusatia-Silesia Region). LUCPOL 11:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia is region (land) in 3-4 country, main in Poland (in 4 voivoideship). Not may write in category Poland or Silesian Voivodeship etc. Silesia is region in Europe (late autonomy). Write in category "europeans". LUCPOL 18:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just wanted to have all the images in one place. As to the bisonvodka - I don't know what you mean. Don't put it into category or delete the picture from Wiki?--SylwiaS | talk 06:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with deleting it, but it's not my picture, and it's on media Wiki. Can we do that?--SylwiaS | talk 11:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add the show/hide functionality to Template:History of Poland, but I can't get it to work. Could you?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{WPMILHIST}} is one example, another one that I am familiar with is the list of GA articles at WP:GA.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see progress :) Great! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I already use the {{subst:Portal:Poland/Welcome}}~~~~ - isn't that a template?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have the User:Piotrus/w :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, good point. Perhaps we should make it blink? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be very low:

Edit summary usage for Appleseed: 33% for major edits and 20% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh! I am very sorry. Excuse me my friend. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 06:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Appleseed:

Thank you by your patient and help. I hope do not disturb your work again. I just added the (¿?)... (I do not know the name of this thing):

to the Category:polish nobility. If it is bad done, please write me. I will delete it myself right now.

My intention was just to do a unique kind of organisation from issues related: Polish Nobility and Polish heraldry.

Sorry again. Best regards, my friend. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again. Why can not be placed the Category:Polish royalty and Category:Polish nobility stubs in the fist page altogether with the others ones? It would be more useful, may be… Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 04:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first one to ask me that question. No wonder, generations of translators have mistaken British "Squadron" for Polish "Szwadron". While originally the meaning was the same (a sq. of cavalry), when it comes to air forces the terms become false cognates. In short, Polish and British air force traditions are incompatible. In Poland the structure was modelled after the structure of other branches of the military, and after the French air forces. Hence we have Air Regiments (pułk lotniczy) composed of roughly four Squadrons (Dywizjon), each composed of two Escadrilles (10 planes each). So, in short, the Polish inter-war air regiment had roughly 80 planes (in reality usually around 100).

In UK however, the system is completely different: a direct equivalent of the Air Regiment is a Group, which is composed of Wings (equivalent to Polish Dywizjon in command structure, but not in number of planes), which are further divided onto Squadrons (12-15 planes, that is somewhere between a Polish Dywizjon and Eskadra; roughly equivalent to the latter in terms of command structure). And now comes the toughest part: the British Squadrons are usually composed of two Flights, that are usually translated to Polish as eskadra, while Polish eskadras are translated to English as escadrilles (pretty much like their French counterparts of 20 planes each).

Did I answer your question, or was I lost somewhere along the road? :) //Halibutt 16:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a question of tradition: people usually write histories of Polish escadrilles (like the 111th in which Skalski fought, or the 7th, better known as "Kościuszko escadrille", because they usually fought independently, at least to some extent, and the Squadron was simply the logistical HQ. At the same time in British armed forces it were the Squadrons to fight independently, with all their Flights fighting together. Hence we have lots of books on 303 Squadron and not on Flight B, while I doubt you would find a single book on the Polish pre-war 3rd Air Squadron. //Halibutt 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Appleseed:

Let me explain better. If you put the subcategories in alphabetical order, as they are right now, you have three of them appearing in the first page altogether and the other two ones separated , one in the second page and the last in the third page. This two subcategories are quite hidden between a large number of names. In this particular -Category:Polish nobility- may be useful to have the subcategories just as –Category:Polish nobility|(blank space)- and not as –Category:Polish nobility|Royalty- . Then will be all of them in the firs page easily findable altogether.

It is just an idea. Best regards Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 03:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I help you? Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appleseed, I saw you indulge in disruptive activities, such as move warring. You failed to present any evidence that Expedition to Kiev is better than Polish Expedition to Kiev. There were numerous expeditions against and sieges of Kiev in history. Your pet title does not make it clear which "expedition to Kiev" it was. If unsubstantiated disruption continues, short blocks will ensue. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My reply to this message was reverted. Appleseed (Talk) 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely related to September 17, I remember seeing it around on wiki somewhere... //Halibutt 08:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't I like Polish wiki? There's plenty of reasons. You might want to take a look at my Polish WP user page to see why did I leave the Polish wiki some time ago. However, there's much more things there:

1. Bad Polish. Simply, the place is a mess and people do not care for proper style at all. It would take ages to correct all the errors there. I know it's fault of the Polish education system and not the Polish wiki as such, but that doesn't make much of a difference, does it.
2. Disregard for the rules of WP. No NPOV, no peer reviews, no inline citations, not even citation templates. It's a wild west (or wild east) and nobody really cares.
3. Constant struggles for power. Self-promoted gurus bashing new-commers, admins explicitly stating in content disputes that they are right because they are admins and no further discussion is required... basically, Polish wiki is a zoo. And I lack patience to visit zoos.
4. POV. Not that English wiki was free of POV (<put some user name here> for instance), but Polish is far worse since nobody really cares. The more articles they have the better, who cares about quality.
5. Low credibility. There's too much self-promotion there, too much ads and too many articles that would've been instantly deleted on en wiki, but are left in pl wiki.

All in all, I believe that the Polish wiki, while at times interesting and helpful, in many respects presents all the worse things in all wikipedias.

Besides, of course there are personal reasons as well. For instance, being a journalist myself I don't really have to feed my scribbling with Polish wiki (scribbling is an addiction), I have my jobs to do it instead. //Halibutt 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my two cents here: I prefer this wiki to pl wiki simply because: bigger is better :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about a template like Template:Russo-Swedish War Series but based on Polish-Russian War?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6-months.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your support is much appreciated, Appleseed. It's a good sign that I have one member of the Polish Cabal behind me, and I hope more will follow. Biruitorul 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely follow those recommendations. I certainly had no idea about the pejorative nature of that term, and will not use it again. Biruitorul 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. Was not completely aware of Colon Etiquette. Where can I read the full rules? Dr. Dan 14:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I evidently succumbed to its Zen, bcause I corrected my colons, at P.P.'s RfC, as soon as you corrected me in my misuse of them. If only the rest of life's mysteries could be so easily corrected. BTW, was I wrong to use a colon at the beginning of this particular sentence? Dr. Dan 01:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message; I do prefer this kind of dispute resolution above a public display of throwing punches. Now I think both you and Piotrus did not read my original statement correctly. I said there were nationalist feelings on *both* sides, but that in that particular time there had been a lot of either pro-Polish and/or anti-Russian edits (as I already mentioned there were a lot of categories created that identified Ingria as an independent country (which it never had been), and several other incidents as well). Piotrus called that unfounded, where he should have asked me for examples, which I would have given gladly. And because Piotrus is an admin, he should have known better than to respond in this way, especially with someone you have never met on talk pages before.

Now as for the threat by Piotrus: Piotrus has a way with words, but it is still a threat, because I have no doubt Piotrus would himself be the first to start the RfArb, or ask someone to do it for him. I'm sorry, I really can't read it any other way, especially not after his request that other admins reprimand me. In football, asking for a yellow card gets rewarded with a yellow card for the asking party, and for good reason. If other admins thought what I had written was wrong, they would have acted on their own accord; asking for other admins to reprimand another user when you haven't even talked to that user is a totally reprehensible action as far as I'm concerned. Piotrus in that moment failed to assume good faith on my part and I was (and still am) very much offended by Piotrus' actions. Errabee 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for including that category. Next time I will use it :). Thanks. - Darwinek 22:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thank you very much for that nice barnstar! I really appreciate it. - Darwinek 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you on my talk page. Ohconfucius 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Appleseed! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who allowed you to post your report in the section of "open reports" in the circumvention of "new reports" section? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy to learn that your forum shopping on WP:PAIN resulted in User:Irpen being blocked for 48 hours? You can never predict where forum shopping will lead. And what if it ended up by Piotrus being blocked? I have seen situations when irresponsible threads led to the blocks of the nominator, too. Please think twice in the future. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blame the messanger, right... sigh.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, I had nothing to do with Irpen's block. Appleseed (Talk) 15:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Calendarium cracoviense.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tak, [12] wystarczy. OrphanBot jest dosc wkurzajacy, copyright paranoia tez, ale coz - takie czasy :( Long leave free culture :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tak na marginesie, to jak uploadujesz public domainy i inne free image, to polecam Wikipedia Commons - chocby dlatego ze ma lepsze system kategoryzacji obrazkow :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jak sie robi zwijane szablony? Potestowalbym np. na Template:Polish Underground State sidebar...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not back, I'm merely on double vacations (vacations from my vacations). Call it an interruption of execution if you please :) //Halibutt 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. 1) zmerguj informacje ze stron 2) upewnij sie, ze gorsze zdjecie nie jest wykorzystywane na en wiki 3) daj znac jak moge kasowac bez robienia puntkow 1) i 2). Albo: {{NowCommons}}. Dzienx. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Thanks for advice --Umedard ^Talk 01:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! That's right :). - Darwinek 09:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Times magazine awarded this "Person of the Year" to everyone who is creating the collaborative net, among them Wikipedians. So you too are the Person of the Year. Renata 17:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to you too :) Renata 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:LITH. Renata 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poland Labelled Map.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found more on it: User:Zondor/Labelled Map Documentation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

You've been told before to desist from unilateral moving and now this spree again. This is an extremely counterproductive, especially since it created an artificial history to a redirect that is a strong candidate for the title of the contested article. How difficult is it to propose things at talk? Please do not engage into this activity. --Irpen 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize fixing the hyphenation would be so problematic for you. Appleseed (Talk) 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation itself is not problematic for me, while it may be for some. Artificial history of the redirect page is. I don't care actually about hyphens as I am not an orthography freak. Moves, unlike edits, create all sorts of unexpected consequences and I have repeatedly asked you to bear this in mind, a request that you repeatedly defied. --Irpen 22:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think orthography is important; does that make me an "orthography freak"? As for changing the redirect history, it slipped my mind. I don't expect it to be a problem, however, since any controversial (read: not orthographic) moves of that page will have to go through WP:RM anyway. As for your "repeated requests", I recall one request from you to propose controversial pages moves on the talk page, and I obliged you. (Interestingly, you didn't hold Ghirlandajo to that same standard when he later reverted my move.) You never mentioned anything about the unintended consequences of page moves. Please don't blow things out of proportion or invent past conflicts that never were. Appleseed (Talk) 23:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did not intend to move the page unilaterally anyway and was intending to propose the move. If you know of any controversial unilateral moves made by me, feel free to raise them. Then, I am not saying that everyone who cares about dashes are orthography freaks. All I am saying is that I am not and I do not, as long as the sign remains a dash and not a slash or and =. You are aware that the name that is there only because Piotrus picked it at some point is now hotly contested. That is enough to not do any article moves without proposing at its talk. You chose instead to move and create a history to the redirect that was not there. I am asking you not to move the contested article next time and this is not an unreasonable request. --Irpen 04:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have not accused you of making unilateral moves (I'm not sure how you came up with that), so that's a moot point. Also, let me say it again: the redirect history slipped my mind, but it shouldn't create any problems. No harm, no foul. Next, I still fail to see why moving an article to make a minor orthographic correction has any bearing on the fact that the content (not orthography) of the article title is under discussion in talk. Finally, can you explain what you mean by "You are aware that the name that is there only because Piotrus picked it at some point is now hotly contested."? Appleseed (Talk) 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is harm in redirect history. While the imposing one's opinion on the community by forcibly moving article is prohibited, a formal WP:RM voting is not required for moves either. If all concerned and involved parties informally discuss the issue at talk and come to an agreement, such agreement is much more valuable than the raw results of WP:RM vote that may be affected by stray voters with no clue of the issue who give their little informed votes. However, now the existence of the history necessiates WP:RM. So, yes, it matters.

As for the phrase you asked to explain, the matter is that the name is anachronistic since the term Muscovy is applied in the article to the time 100 years past the Grand Duchy of Moscow. While some sources repeat that mistake, the majority of them use the term Russia. Perhaps, Polish sources differ and that's why Piotrus picked the name. Also, perhaps, Piotrus is not aware of the global POV implications of misaplying the M word anachronistically. I am not saying that all authors who use the term for the 17th century are doing so for the POV reasons but the term is wrong at best and offensive at worst. --Irpen 05:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it means so much to you, I will propose even the most minor changes at talk before moving articles that you're interested in. However, if you hold me to that standard, I expect you to hold your friends to the same. If you turn a blind eye to actions such as Ghirlandajo's forced move of Kiev Expedition to "Polish Expedition to Kiev" and blatantly ignore me like you did here, consider out agreement void. No more double standards.

Regarding "Muscovy", that discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here, since my move had nothing to do with the content of the title. Appleseed (Talk) 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Muscovy, the discussion does take place at the article's talk. As for notifying about the moves no matter how minor ones, well, I would say that even though the mere typo correction in the title may be trivial enough to not require the warning, if the move is followed by salting the earth action, it is not a minor one. In that move in question, Ghirla did not salt the earth. --Irpen 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't win, can I? If I don't fix the double redirects, people complain. If I do, which is my habit, you complain about "salting the earth". As for Ghirlandajo, he "salted the earth" by forcing the page into move protection at his preferred title. See how that works? Appleseed (Talk) 21:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I complain not because you fixed dbl redirects but because you salted the earth. As for Ghirla, the article was forced into move protection by a move war at which several parties took part. That the war could possibly have happened is the proof that he did not salt the earth. As for your not "winning", this is not about winning. This is about reaching consensus, when possible, or at least not aggravating further the situation where the discussion is already heated. --Irpen 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "move war" was between Ghirlandajo and myself. He moved the page. I moved it back and asked him to use talk. He refused, moved the page again, and started his insults (for your convenience). As I've stated several times, I am always open to discussion. I am not dead set on "Kiev Expedition" or "Kiev Expedition (1018)". The problem is that there was no "heated discussion"; there was no discussion whatsoever because Ghirlandajo refused to participate. From the recent RM it is clear that my proposed title is not ideal. It is also clear that some are not happy with the current title. And so the page will remain at its current location thanks to a technicality, and the only person who has "won" is Ghirlandajo. Do you call that consensus?

Also, what is the difference between fixing double redirects and your notion of "salting the earth"? I was under the impression that they're the same thing? What are you complaining about if not the redirects?

I am not to comment on the events that took place after your and Ghirla move war. Suffice is to say, that your taking it to PAIN and the drama that followed was the final straw that caused the deletion of that disgusting board. Piotrus' activity at WP:RFI helped me convince the majority to delete that one as well. This shortcut you both use to go various places to seek for blocks of your content opponents is beyond pale and I said everything there is to it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for investigation and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. More was said here, here, here, here and perhaps 4 or 5 other places.

Fixing a double redirect is always salting the earth, true. It's playing with moves of the hotly contested titles is what makes a difference. Fix all the redirects you want where it does not matter. Do not move articles when the discussion takes place at its talk until such discussion concludes. Your salting the earth does not allow to move it back and continue from where we where. That is what makes a difference. --Irpen 08:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, I'm willing to go out of my way for you regarding page moves if you can get your allies to behave reasonably. As for you "interesting" interpretation of what happened at WP:PAIN and elsewhere, it would help if you got your facts straight before drawing conclusions from them. I've only posted to WP:PAIN once, for starters. And I never got any complaints from anyone (other than you, of course) about that "final straw" or my other "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Anyway, I think enough has been said on this topic. Let's not drag this out any further. Appleseed (Talk) 14:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the category Illuminated manuscripts was not a good idea. of course not all psalters are illuminated, but enough are, and I think all of the ones that have articles, or are likely to get articles. As I'm sure you know, Psalters are a very important category of illuminated manuscript. Please think more carefully before making this sort of change. Johnbod 01:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the BS! It's very very much appreciated, though not deserved, of course, since the jury is still out on that one at FAC and will be for some time at the the rate I'm getting through MK's objections. However, I've spotted something intriguing re your DOB point (see Talk:Jogaila#DOB). I'd be interested to know what you think. qp10qp 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Na podstawie tego  :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are a more 'eye-pleasing' and user-friendly version of categories that can have their information content in articles. On average I am pro-template, but if you think we have some useless one, we can discuss them on WP:PWNB or just submit to WP:TFD trial by fire.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that theres practically no one other than myself(it seems) that knows User:LUCPOL's agenda and thought-processes, other than you, ive extensively tried to remove the Pan-Silesian POV additions made by him and his agenda seems to be changing on the outside, but i did report him a while ago(Requests for Investigation is closed now though.) Im working up a continuation of that report on him though and i think you should add some materials to it. (User:R9tgokunks\User:LUCPOL) -- Hrödberäht 16:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprawa została wyjaśniona, możesz się spytać User:Piotrus czy User:Beaumont. Dawniej miałem "sprzeczkę" z User:R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht) i dlatego on mnie teraz gnębi. Codziennie sprawdza moje edycje, włącza się w moje dyskusje z innymi osobami, manipuluje faktami. Sprawa dotycząca User:R9tgokunks\User:LUCPOL została rozwiązana na RFI, udowodniłem że nie dokonałem żadnego wandalizmu itp. i że tekst R9tgokunks/Hrödberäht jest mistifikacją. Trzeba uważać na tego usera, choćby dlatego że on miał w ciągu ostatnich 2-3 miesięcy ze 20 różnych wojen edycyjnych (+ czyste wandalizmy np. usuwanie postów innych osób gdy są nie po jego myśli). LUCPOL 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUCPOL, if we are in agreement over the Silesia categories, then I don't expect any problems in the future. Happy editing, Appleseed (Talk) 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)