Talk:Polish–Romanian alliance

message: Kudos for the creator! //Halibutt 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but it is much smaller then I wanted: there is almost no info online, pages or print (I still have scholar to check). If anybody has access to some offline print material, please help expand this article, especially on the issues betweeen 1921 and 1939.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to expand on the preparatory stages and on early Polish-Rumanian cooperation, just google the words "Pokucie" and "1919" or "1920" :) Also, I'm sure I have something useful at home. It might take me some time to get there though. //Halibutt 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent. Unfortunately I can only apploud from the sidelines now :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I had noticed this appeal before. I'm willing to include refences to the articles (I was looking for one of them in my magazines, I'm glad it has an online version). Bear with me. Dahn 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos

message: Citation should really be to a specific page in the book itself, which should be explicitly cited. A link to Google Books, which requires an account and login, is really not a clean citation on its own. It should only be a convenience link in an otherwise good citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am not fond of embedded link citation style, it is acceptable as per WP:MOS. And Google books are much more easy to verify then your average library book, thus are much preferable to them; also unlike many academic databases, Google book account and viewing are free.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, Google Books does not require an account, AFAIK. It makes your life easier, but books are available without an account anyway. //Halibutt 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some, but not all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, full citation with cite.php is preferable, of course, but until somebody finds the time to do so, what's wrong with a link to Google Books?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone (i.e. me) has now found the time.  Presuming my first one isn't reverted in the next few days, I'll do the rest of them. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Books as citation 

message: Can other users verify if the problem with this revision really causes such problems for many users? It looks good on my screen and contains much more useful data.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No visual problem with either for me; I didn't take the time to really compare content. - Jmabel | Talk 22:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References problem

message: Why did Poland decline Romanian military assistance after the outbreak of World War II? Appleseed (Talk) 20:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it wanted to win :P. Dahn 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Not sure if I follow you. From what I read the logic was that Romanian military would not help much, but it would be better to have 'neutral' Romania where the allies troops and supplies could move freely. I'd certainly like to see this fleshed out to more than one sentence we currently have. PS. Found an interesting article in Polish (), among other things it mentions that the Alliance was against SU, not G, thus Romania was not oblidged to help. It also mentions Romania was unable and unwilling to help - on the other hand, Poland did not ask for help as it realized both of those factors. This article has more info that we can use, unfortunatly as a primary source it's rather poor (Usenet post).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Mine was just a joke: Romania was not exactly a war machine in 1939, to put it mildly... We had the fancy uniforms, though. Dahn 22:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once when playing HoI I decided to play Romania and conquered most of the Balkans :) But yes, I think it would be one of the main reasons. On the other hand, Polish military had (obviously) some faults, too. It would be interesting to see some more information on Romanian military in 1939 at some point.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War II 

message: This article covers several treaties.  What are your thoughts on splitting it into several articles, one for each treaty? We could then link them together with a "Polish-Romanian Alliance" template. Appleseed (Talk) 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: Aside from the text being horribly phrased and painfully non-wikifed, it had deleted referenced text altogether (interestingly, without also deleting references or notes already in there), it was repetitive, mildly POV (stuff like "sincere friendship"), and most likely an infringment of copyright (it is embarassing that the user who took the time to [poorly] translate it was not aware that it is not legal to make the translation public!). If some of the information, once condensed, tailored to the text altready present, and properly written, could have made its way back into the text (most of it does not), this cannot be attempted as such: it is absurd to translate the title of a reference that is in Romanian originally without providing its original title, and a magazine reference should at least provide the month of its publication. Anonymous user, please see WP:Copyrights and WP:Vandalism. Dahn 12:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The recent "addition"

message: This map could be very unclear to readers who are unfamiliar with the region, because there is no written attributes - which state is which, for example what blue color represents and similar? M.K. 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly our main mapmaker, User:Halibutt, can only do so much. I wish he would do more maps for us - you can ask him - alas, I am afraid we may wait a little bit for something to happen. Perhaps you could try your hand at that? I have no experience with map making online.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  online? Uh? Nevertheless, are there  no another maps of this period in wiki? hmm. I will try to think something.  M.K. 22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am lost a bit, I just thought I could use this existing image as layer to modification, but it is copyrighted! So how can it be? And another note this image`s expanded description window, stated Early version of my map of Poland and Eastern Europe between 1918 and it is wrong or I something missed? M.K. 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, it is copyrighted under GFDL, so you can use it respecting attribution and share-alike rules of this licence. I am not sure I understand your comment about description - sure, Poland's borders changed, particularly in 1918-1921, but this shape is considered the 'standard'. Perhaps you should ask Halibutt as the author?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem of GFDL is but changing it is not allowed, my intention was to change it accordingly with state names, and this license prevents me do so. M.K. 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing from GFDL to other licence is not allowed, but you can do whatever you want with the picture. It's like CC BY-SA, IIRC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A, I see. Going back to the date issue they are wrong it cant be a between 1918 and 1945, because the borders was not the same shape during these years as shown in image, for instance Vilnius, Klaipeda regions and similar, but probably it is another example of POV or I something missed or misunderstood. Secondly and the caption of this image in this particular article is misleading - because you can not portray the surrounding states which borders were different during 1920-1939 time frame, example Klaipeda was part of Lithuania during '23-'39 not part of Germany. So I suggest at least write 1920. About image with state names, I have received some images which I have to work so I would have no time to adjust this map. M.K. 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Check this - some negotiations between Grigore Gafencu and Józef Beck. Perhaps this can be used in the article - what do you think, Dahn? Others?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's interesting. It seems to offer some explanation into why we didn't get to help you guys after all - you... didn't want us to... Dahn 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it seems to fit some of the stuff we read/discussed before. It's nice when the pieces fit in :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure is. Dahn 04:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A related event

message: This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review