Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive 6

message: is removing  from images of Polish money (see his contribs). If he has his way, those images will be deleted. Comments are needed urgentlu (preferably on his userpage), as untagged images are prime targets for deletion (bot-automated).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the essential merits of the matter?  Does Poland object to electronic circulation of its currency?  logologist|Talk 04:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In Polish low "currency mark" (not "currency sign"; in Polish “znak” = in English: "sign" or "mark" or "token" or "signal") is synonym of "banknote and coin" (not a image of banknotes or coins), so "currency mark" isn’t "sign" because "currency mark" is real money. Aotearoa from Poland 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest calling it "Polish currency," not "Polish money."  04:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the view of the former supreme court judge Tadeusz Szymanek images of "new" złoty banknotes are not subjected to copyright law (I am in a posesion of an mp3 recording of a lecture to prove it). Can you show us any polish laws or opinions of renowned polish lawyers to counter this view? Mieciu K 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish money, NBP and fair use 

message: Gryffindor is working on moving another Polish queen — this time, Marie Josepha, consort of August III the Saxon.  KonradWallenrod 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like he added category Habsburg-Lorraine to the article.  What exactly is the problem? Appleseed (Talk) 18:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it looks like they're voting to move on the talk page. Appleseed (Talk) 18:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Polish queen being moved.

message: Sigizmund_Krzhizhanovsky
Although wrtiting in Russian he considered himself a Pole. A Polish version of his name should be given and category changed from Russian to Ukrainian and Polish writer.
--Molobo 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pisał wprawdzie po rosyjsku, jednak do końca życia uważał się za Polaka przebywającego w Rosji na emigracji Hmmm. An English source for that would be useful. While I do think Polish name shoud be incuded - as well as the above fragment, translated - I am not sure if category of Polish artists falls here. As a compromise we should definitely keep the Russian/Ukrainians categories.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's a good point. If he wrote in Russian than we can hardly call him a Polish writer, can we?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on whether we treat the category of Polish writers as a sub-category of Polish people by occupation or a sub-category of Polish language. If it's the earlier (and it is, I believe), then it ought to list Polish people who used to write something (including Joseph Conrad). If it's the latter, it should include only Polish language writers. //Halibutt 06:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zygmunt Krzyżanowski

message: Cześć,
szybkie pytanko -- linkiem interwiki dotarłem na Real Politics Union (aka UPR). Parę klików dalej zauważyłem, że Law and Justice przezentuje sobą to samo. Czy były w przeszłości jakieś dyskusje nt. tłumaczenia/nie tłumaczenia nazw polskich partii? Prezydenta mamy tam gdzie należy, a nie pod Lech Duck... --Qviri (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reply in English for the benefit of non-Polish speakers readers of our board. Since in Polish we say 'Demokraci', 'Republikanie', 'brytyjscy laburzyści', itp., and names of those parties are translated to Polish on pl-wiki (vide :pl:Partia Pracy (brytyjska)), I see no problem in using English names for Polish parties here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Sorry for no English originally, I was tired and didn't think it would be a big deal if I didn't translate. Thanks. --Qviri (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nazwy artykułów partii politycznych 

message: Recentely user Ghirlandajo  has entered information that could be seen as unneutral in several articles regarding occupation of Poland by Russia and effects of it. Users interested in this are welcomed to share their comments.
--Molobo 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian occupation

message: Ghirla and Kuban Cossack against Rydel - I think this may be interesting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rydel]]

message: Comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Muscovy#Ghirla_rever_.2F_Petr_pestering]]

message: These translations of Polish province names into English! Good God! Where did we get these aberrations from? Cuiavia-Pomerania? Never heard of it in all my life! Let's just stick to the Polish names (minus the accented letters). Whatever next? The Boat's Voivodship or the Holy Cross Voivodship! It's like the Polish translator's passion for turning 'ul. Mickiewicza' into 'Mickiewicz Street'. No one translates 'Bahnhofstrasse' into 'Bahnhof Street' or 'Rue de Paix' into 'Peace Road'. Or indeed 'Oxford Circus' into 'Cyrk Oksfordski' or 'Marlborough Street' into 'ul. Marlborough'a'
I am keen to see the principle of reciprocity on Wikipedia. The Polish site does not attempt to translate British place names into Polish, other than London/Londyn. So why the attempts to translate Polish place names into English (other than Warszawa/Warsaw)?
Michael Dembinski
:Agree wholeheartedly (except for the idea of dropping Polish diacritics).  Another example:  the recent move of Wisła River to "Vistula River."  The only Polish name that I, too, "translate" into English — for now — is "Warsaw."  It seems that some of our Polish English-Wikipedia editors insist on being more English-speaker than the English-speakers!
:If you habitually show such good judgment and grasp of the relations between the Polish and English languages, I hope you will stick around.
:It would be nice if you signed-and-dated your postings by striking the tilde sign four times in succession.
:I also suggest you put your postings at the bottom of the pile.  I almost missed the above one, and I fear most of our colleagues will.  Maybe you'd consider moving it to the bottom?
:Regards, logologist|Talk 15:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should also consider what to do with Święty Krzyż Voivodship.  It seems that, according to Google, this formulation exists only on Wikipedia. What is wrong with Świętokrzyskie Voivodship?  That is what the article title was until January 1, 2006, when User:Logologist moved it to the current name. Balcer 16:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with Świętokrzyskie Province.  I now agree with that rendering.  (But compare all the other province — as I render województwo — names with the previous "Englishings," one or two of which have, unfortunately, now been restored).  logologist|Talk 17:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a problem with the Polish diacritics. They all come out as little squares on my screen. One reason why I find the Polish Wikipedia hard work. FYI - Standard BBC translation since the 1999 administrative reforms in Poland have 'województwo' as 'province'. I'm relatively comfortable with 'voivodship' but loathe 'voivodeship' (like, is it pronouced 'voy - vod - eship' or 'voy - voad - ship'?). Again, English speakers have no problems with either French Departements or German Lande.
--Michaeldembinski 20:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On most recent computers diacritics are no longer a problem.  What kind of software are you using?    Balcer 20:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: While I agree with most of your points, I think that there are more exceptions to consider than just Warsaw. Consider the proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Regarding your display problem, you may want to check Wikipedia:Unicode. You probably need to install some Unicode font on affected computers - that from my experience solves the problem in most cases.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Unicode fonts: http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fonts.html#wgl4 Vorthax 00:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Edit the articles and use the Wikipedia:Requests for move when necessary.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations of Polish placenames into English

message: Please review the article Poglish and decide whether it should be deleted.  Thanks. --Nagle 07:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest deletion.  This word simply does not see enough use to merit its own Wikipedia article.  Google shows only 61 hits.  Most of these are either reproductions of Wikipedia content, or are completely unrelated.   This matter properly belongs in a subsection of our Polish language article.  Balcer 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And shall we also delete the rest of the family:  "Spanglish," "Franglais," "Chinglish," "Czenglish," "Engrish," "Finglish," "Hinglish," "Taglish," "Yinglish" and all the others?  logologist|Talk 15:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Spanglish, as Google shows 3,400,000 hits for it!  Let me turn this question around: do you propose to create articles on all combinations of [[<insert language here>glish]]?  Please move the material in Poglish to a subsection of some other article and change it into a redirect.  Wikipedia is not a place for creating or promoting neologisms. Balcer 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article?  "Polish language"?  "English language"?  Also, if you look at the "Poglish" discussion page, you'll find that Nagle's original question arose from an initial misunderstanding, not from malice toward the word.  logologist|Talk 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Balcer, unless the author can provide some references (I only get 59 Google hits, and not all of them are about the language).  There is also the matter of a similar article, Pinglish (Poland). Appleseed (Talk) 15:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pinglish (Poland)" carries a narrower definition.  logologist|Talk 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling Pinglish returns around 14,000 results, but except for the occasional Polish forum post, most of it refers to Persian+English. I'm not sure either of these articles should be on WP. Appleseed (Talk) 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poglish 

message: Check . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For another one, check Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War 2#Poland. Balcer 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perełka

message: . Good reference source - worth checking often.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: God's Playground in Google Print

message: Na podstawie doskonałego opracowania pochądzącego z Carskiej Rosji rok 1912 o Polskich powstaniach :)
--Molobo 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inna perełka

message: This represents a dangerous development. Alliances of R. and G. POV pushers have a long, if infamous, tradition outside wiki, and I fear what they may do to this project if not addressed properly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pan Piotr, I may answer the question for you: such alliances may salvage Wikipedia from your pet troll Molobo and purge it from some of the worst jingoist propaganda that currently brings the project into disgrace. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "History does not repeat itself except in the minds of those who do not know history." --Khalil Gibran (Sciurinæ 20:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's hope you are right.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, but nonetheless nationalities are important. While most R., G., P. (or whatever) editors are good editors, everybody has some 'black sheeps', and they tend to gravitate to the articles related to that country's history. Therefore I am worried about about the R. or G. black sheep more then French or Japanese, and I will monitor and update 'good' editors on the development in that area, so they know where to concentrater their mediation/NPOVing efforts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, please stop calling me a black sheep and posting other extremely divisive comments. The only "black sheep" here are three chauvinist contributors whose names are too well known to be mentioned. You know that I never edit Poland-related articles when not provoked by Molobo or yourself. If you need to persevere with personal attacks, you are welcome to start a black list on the model of Halibutt's. The practice of calling me names is not helpful at all. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what's helpful is telling people to "fuck off" like you did not too long ago. Space Cadet 12:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ghirla: thank you for admitting that your recent edits of Polish articles are a result of a 'provocation'. Now, can you elaborate a little more on that provocation? It would be helpful if we knew what is it that provokes you so much.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History repeats itself

message: I would like to cancel the current text of this template and replace it with the following general but very useful text:
"This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Polish Government. This applies worldwide.
Article 4 of polish copyright law Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 o prawie autorskim i znakach pokrewnych (DZ.U. 1994 NR. 24 poz. 83): 
ART.4 The following are not subject to copyright law:
2) goverment documents, materials, signs or symbols 
ART.4 Nie stanowią przedmiotu prawa autorskiego:
2) urzędowe dokumenty, materiały, znaki lub symbole
If I'm not mistaken this law allows us to use freely all materials from Polish goverment websites in a way similar to the Template:USGov.  If you know polish see this law yourself   Mieciu K 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In related news, I have obtained the text of Polish copyright laws from the interwar period - if anybody wants them, let me know and I'll email you.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested. Since lex retro non agit the law I hav e mentioned above would only be effctive after 1994 so we should to check the earlier copyright status of "goverment materials" Mieciu K 23:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The principle of lex retro non agit applies only insofar as the law in question is more restrictive or severe as the previous legal situation. Thus, unless there is an explicit provision exempting pre-1994 materials, the Polish government has released all of them into the public domain, regardless of when they were created. --Thorsten1 00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that PolandGov refers to the www.poland.gov portal and not the government of Poland. Sure, it is a governmental site, but the works featured there are not necessarily works of the Polish government. In fact most of those at the WWII portal of that site are definitely not creations of any governmental agency. //Halibutt 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:PolandGov rewrite 

message: Could someone research and prepare the data about Culmerland? MG argues this was Prussian territory, while I always thought this was a) territory of mixed Polish-Prussian influences b) it was inside Polish state since at least Boleslaw Chrobry, and was inhabited by Slavic tribes earlier... Books, preferably monographies are the best. WWW links are imho useless. Szopen 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Culmerland]] 

message: It's terrible, but we don't have any good photo to put in the Solidarity article. All we have is too old, and none of it is too good (especially after the copyright paranoia people deleted most of the TIME covers :( Copyleft photos needed! Also, more photos for Solidarity article (which I am slowly moving toward a PR/FAC level) would be appreciated!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, but this TIME cover is not really GDFL - you should be more careful with the tags (I corrected it - let's see how many minites will it take before it will be deleted, eh...). Anyway, thanks for such a quick reply. Could you add captions to the pictures (date, etc.)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed:[[Lech Wałęsa]] photo

message: Regarding titles from Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I think we need some rule, and Wikipedia:Naming convention (titles) is no help here. Should we go with kanclerz or chancellor? Kanclerz is shorter, Chancellor is English. As W:NC state that we should concentrate on making Wiki more user-friendly than editor-friendly, I am begining to think that the second option is better, but I think may merit further discussion. Also, the problem appears because some title are untranslatable (starost), sound strange even after translation (voivode) or are so different from the original that Polish users would be confused (koniuszy - Equerry, stolnik - Pantler.) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is always the option to use both: kanclerz (chancellor). Titles that use more rare English words (I had never seen the word pantler before today) should certainly not be English only. (Is stolnik similar/equivalent to :de:Mundschenk, by the way?). Articles with many titles will look messy with double naming, though. Kusma (討論) 04:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where a suitable translation exists, I think we should use it.  "Chancellor (Poland)", "equerry", "voivode", and "pantler" all fit the bill.  You don't hear about pantlers very often, but I checked dictionary.com and m-w.com, and they both list it. Appleseed (Talk) 14:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding equerry, I think this is a wrong translation and we should go with Master of the Horse (see discussion).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: logologist|Talk 23:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article names for old Polish titles (kanclerz, etc.)

message: Hey, czesc! I just wanted to mention that I made a category for Polish Wikipedians! If you would like to join, please go here
:Category:Polish Wikipedians
If this is irrelevant on this talk page then please feel free to delete. Thank You! User:Wikieizor 1 April 2006
:Tnx for the info, I have added this to .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish Category

message: A certain administrator has made serious changes to the article on antypolonizm, subsequently deleting any changes made by other users ("NPOV" of course masquearading as the main reason) and ignoring any kind of discussion, going as far as to block his own essay regarding the subject. Could someone help me out? There are some really abusive admins over there, all the more harmful since they completely change the context of articles, terrorising other users into inaction through their misunderstanding of NPOV policy. I am waiting for administrator opinions, though I know it may be wishful thinking. Anyway, thanks for any input or help on the subject. 5.0
PS I guess Hitler was reading some Polish right-wing newspapers full of political slogans (themselves responding to anti-semitism) and that influenced his outlook on Poles. I ask you, what was before Jedwabne? What do you call the persecution of Poles on racial, cultural, etc. grounds for centuries before? Who does he think he is anyway?
:Regarding your first point, I replied at :pl:Dyskusja Wikipedii:Administratorzy. I am not sure I understand your second point (para). PS. Please create an account if you plan to talk here in the future - it helps identify who is speaking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem on Polish Wikipedia (Antypolonizm) 

message: This is not a specific to Wikipedia, but I am a regular Wikipedian and thought to ask fellow Wikipedians. I would like to contact a museum in Poland: http://www.wilanow-palac.art.pl about an item of Polish heritage from the late 18th/early 19th century that is in my possession. Specifically I believe it may have once belonged to Artur Potocki (1787-1832), it has his family crest and initials on it. The museum seems to have other pieces from the same family online. I need help with an email to the Museum as I do not speak Polish. Would anyone be interested in helping me in contacting the museum? I'm in the USA and have no idea how our family came into possession of it. -- Stbalbach 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried emailing all your suggestions and never heard back. I don't think it's worth much (perhaps a few hundred dollars on ebay), but if it has any value to a museum or family I would be happy to donate it. I believe it's probably part of a larger collection that was dispersed at some point in time. -- Stbalbach 21:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help  

message: Hi this is Tymek 02:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish soccer (football) in late 1930s 

message: Ghirlandajo readds false information the the article, mainly that he was "the first and last" prince of Poland. I don't know where he found the information(I will it is in one guess one of the XIX century Imperial Russian books our Russian contributors like to quote), but the information is false as brothers of Poniatowski had  that title. 
Please correct this false information:
--Molobo 10:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this time Ghirla is right. His edit is referenced , and it was me who added that particular point. Note that according to the source he was not just a 'prince' but a 'prince of Poland'. He was certainly not the first or last prince, but I find it likely he might have been the first and last 'prince of Poland'. Perhaps we can elaborate more on the title to make it not as confusing. Finding what was his title in Polish and Russian would help - it is possible the source is mistaken, or it is possible the title was indeed unique.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Józef Zajączek

message: At Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Old Swiss Confederacy. Granted, it's not Poland related per se, but I think it should not be equaled to such FAs as PLC or History of Poland (1945-1989). What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments appreciated 

message: On damages made by Soviet Occupation inflicted on Poland:
http://www.ipn.gov.pl/biuletyn/4/biuletyn4_51.html
http://www.ipn.gov.pl/biuletyn/13/biuletyn02_2.html
In Polish. Perhaps I shall translate and create article on that. Meanwhile Polish users and editors working are welcome to use the information.
--Molobo 15:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting article

message: Hello!  Just wanted to let you all know that I have started a cleanup and standardization effort of :Category:World War II ships of Poland and its subcategories.  Feel free to stop by and join in!  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of Category:World War II ships of Poland   

message: Cześć. Moglibyście zajrzeć na artykuł o Czeskim Cieszynie? Jakiś wandal stale kłócił się ze mną i w końcu dodał tam szablon NPOV. Chciałbym znać wasze zdanie, czy myślicie, że artykuł jest naprawdę nieobjektywny. Dzięki. Jeśli uważacie, że artykuł jest objektywny, to poprostu usuńcie ten szablon. -- Darwinek 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This is about Český Těšín, and possibly also about History of Cieszyn and Těšín.--Austrian 22:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Although this is a Polish Wikipedians noticeboard, our preffered language is English (as to not estrange other contributors interested in Poland but not knowning Polish). Could you translate your message? Tnx.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Translation: Hi. Could you look at Czeski Cieszyn article? Some vandal still fighted with me and finally he placed the NPOV template there. I would like to know your opinion, if you think that the article is really subjective. Thanks. If you think like me, that it is just ok, feel free to remove that tag. -- Darwinek 09:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czeski Cieszyn 

message: See Talk:Polish_September_Campaign#Invasion_of_Poland_1939 and comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should simply use the most common names of the wars. However, if we are to use strong terms where applicable (no doubt invasion is applicable here) I would ask same users to support renaming articles about Polish invasions to the East to "invasion" as well. We now have a Polish-Muscovite War and Soviet-Polish War. Please invasion their titles too. Same standards everywhere. --Irpen 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is not about standards but the correct name. Let's forget about the names we use here and see what are the most common conventions in the relevant academic literature.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I second Irpen here. Let's rename the Polish-Soviet War to Polish and Ukrainian invasion of Bolshevik-seized Ukraine and consequent Russian counter-attack. A lovely name, isn't it. And I'm sure we could find lots of sources to use it, after all it's the most natural and most popular name for that conflict. //Halibutt 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Polish September Campaign to Invasion of Poland? 

message: Please comment at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło to stop this monstrosity from happening.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Władysław II Jagiełło to [[Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania]] 

message: There is a proposal to move article Sambia to Samland. Appleseed (Talk) 14:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: Dear fellow users,
there has been some controversy regarding missing sources on images that have been uploaded from the internet and used on various polish-related articles. Please please always state your sources when uploading images. This is necessary and part of Wikipedia policy and rules, see Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. It only takes two seconds to do, and saves a lot of trouble later. If anyone needs any help or requires further assistance, feel free to contact me or anyone else from the image team, always glad to help out. thank you and Happy Easter everyone. Gryffindor 18:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By bots or by users who aggressively tag even clearly OK images and only get annoyed when referred to m:Copyright paranoia which seems written especially for cases like these. In any case, tagging and sourcing images is a good idea since it saves time and effort. --Irpen 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please always state source for images 

message: From Red Army (now removed): 
At the end of World War I, Poland emerged as an independent state. Shortly after, Poland occupied parts of Ukraine and Belarus, in an attempt to create a state “from sea to sea”. In the Polish-Soviet War that followed, most of thus occupied territory was liberated, but parts of it remained under Polish rule. The Soviet advance halted roughly at the Curzon Line, thus completing the liberation of the lands previously annexed by Poland. Many former Polish subjects viewed the advancing troops as liberators, welcoming them with flowers and “bread and salt”.
Watching if anybody will revert my edit may be interesting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laugh or cry? 

message: I wuld like to delete redirect from Tutejszy (sb. from here) to Poleszuk, because this word is usred by many group to call them self like that... Radomil talk 12:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know abot appopriateness of this deletion so I won't comment, but the procedural way is Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another Slavic ethnicity that referred to themselves as "locals" (Polish:  "tutejsi") were the Carpatho-rusins.  logologist|Talk 15:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that Tutejszy shoul not be deleted but transformed either into an article or a disambig, then.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A disambig seems a decent idea, but a separate article on self-identity would be even better. Especially that the Lithuanian import of that word (tutejsas) seems to have a derogatory meaning nowadays... //Halibutt 17:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My greatgrandfather usualy call himself "Tutejszy" or "Hier geboren"... he was Pole born in southern Greater Poland (Provinz Posen, Kreis Ostrowo), so that term was not only restricted to Eeastern Borderline/Western Ukraine, Belarus or Central Lithuania Radomil talk 19:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, so here might be such articles? So why not stela :) stela in Cieszyn Silesian means stąd and is very, very common amongst us :) Examples: Od stu lat mieszkańcy Śląska Cieszyńskiego mówią o sobie, że są ludźmi stela (stąd), co pomaga im nie dostrzegać rubieży. Komuś obcemu trudno zrozumieć te słowa, wypowiadane ciężko, z dna przepony, ale tu, na pograniczu, wszyscy używają gwary: górnicy i nauczyciele, kierowcy autobusów i adwokaci, kucharki i lekarze., or  Ludzi, którzy nie są „stela” łatwo rozpoznać.... D_T_G (PL) 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tutejszy

message: I must say, the article Polish Empire is quite unique, and an astonishing amount of effort went into it.  Looks like a great candidate for deletion to me, nevertheless. Balcer 01:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now listed for deletion. Balcer 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish Empire for voting records.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative history 

message: Shortly before his another  forced departure Molobo grossly altered the neutrality of Legnica article.  That was later followed by Space Cadet's removal of a POV tag Ghirla attempted to use to alert the readers. Since I can't read the source Molobo cites, could other Polish editors look into the matter? The main part of the issue is how to strike a balance in not focusing on too narrow a detail in broad topic articles. If such balance is abandoned, any article can be thrown off-balance in any direction since some episodes favored by bearers of any POV have occured all the time in the world's history. How valid this info is and how much of it is appropriate for the article, is the question to readers that both can read the source and have an idea from experience of what amount of detail is appropriate. --Irpen 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: discussion moved to talk:Legnica as per Balcer's request. --Irpen 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legnica

message: Please take a look at contributions of . //Halibutt 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zvin?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar topics and disregard for anyone's oppinion, but he doesn't insult people, which Zvin couldn't live without. Also, I doubt Zvin would leave the Polish name. Instead he'd change it to Lithuanian and add some offensive remark. He should be watched nevertheless. //Halibutt 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that there is a Polish anon revrting him in a day or so, I consider both of them to be a minor nuisance that I am not sure how we can deal with. Leaving LDK a message on his talk may be a good idea, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDKMember 

message: Could someone translate the Polish version into the English article? Thx. --Candide, or Optimism 05:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Zawichost]] 

message: I have created Template:Audio-pl for use with Polish pronunciation .ogg files. Olessi 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take also note of the more general  which I've been using for quite some time now. //Halibutt 15:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Audio-pl]] 

message: There is a proposal to move article Elżbieta Rakuszanka. Appleseed (Talk) 13:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: Is there an English equivalant of this term (:pl:Kali (postać fikcyjna))? Please see history of Polish minority in the Soviet Union. Anyway, references much appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus TalkTalkTalkTalk 22:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kali's morality]] 

message: Anon creation, old (Dec'04). Content is: The Battle of Bory Tucholskie, in July of 1944, took place in Lovrejs, between the 57th Europa Armored Brigade, and the 1st Giovanni Lee Army. I was expected to see something about the '39 battle where Armia Pomorze was defeated, but it is plausible there was a '44 battle there too - but the names of the units are strange, and what the heck is Lovrejs?? Google shows only wiki and mirros hits so unless I hear otherwise here, I'd like to delete it - or preferably replace it with '39 battle (unfortunately there is no article about this battle at pl wiki for me to translate yet...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely a joke.  But boy, it managed to live for a long time. Balcer 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not linked from any significant article, it was hard to find. I am replacing it with a proper stub about '39 battle now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Bory Tucholskie]] - a joke? 

message: I'd strongly suggest that 1) if you use it, list your number on your userpage (or at least send it me by email) 2) if you don't, start. Sometimes it is really handy to be able to contact one another quicker then via talk page/email. PS. My GG number is on my page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gadu-Gadu]] 

message: I just stumbled upon a useful tool: Ref converter.This converts articles that use the old  and  system into the new  system. A useful thing to know about.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref converter 

message: If you could take a look at this vote and vote as you wish. I am rather annoyed with abuse of 'T1', and it seems that few users actually know about those userpage fights...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OT, but a favor for me 

message: I would like to copy this image tag template to en wiki, but there are some issues on it's talk page that make me question if the current en-text is appopriate. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:pl:Szablon:Grafika Prezydent]] 

message: Molobo asks if anybody could give him here a brief translation of this page (Russian).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation request from Russian 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Poland#.7B.7BPoland-geo-stub.7D.7D_split.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split of pl-geo-stub

message: I used the history section from Lower Silesian Voivodship to create Lower Silesia, so there are now articles differentiating between the historical region and the administrative region. Also, I found an article for Middle Silesia. Is this actually a used term? The article is a stub with nothing linking to it... Olessi 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was born in Katowice and lived there for most of my life, and I've never heard about 'Middle Silesia' (Środkowy Śląsk??).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silesia 

message: Information about the formerly German city of Küstrin is currently split between Küstrin and Kostrzyn nad Odrą. The German WP has articles at :de:Kostrzyn nad Odrą, :de:Küstrin, and :de:Küstriner Vorland.  Input at Talk:Küstrin about what information should be where would be helpful. Thanks! Olessi 03:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminds me of Cieszyn and Český Těšín.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Küstrin / Kostrzyn nad Odrą 

message: There is a suggestion to remove 'Polish' from the name - see Talk:Polish_Constitution_of_May_3%2C_1791#Rename. I tentatively support the idea, given the arguments there - perhaps other may want to comment as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 3rd Constitution remaing 

message: User:Ejdzej asked me to take a look at  ad his actions. Indeed, it seems the guy should be monitored. //Halibutt 12:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abecadło 

message: Information on persecution of Poles in Prussia was deleted by user earlier deleting information about Wehrmach't war crimes
--Molobo 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Prussia]]

message: Needs improvement and verification. Balcer 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Biała Podlaska]] 

message: Some comments would be apprieciated to this new FAC related to Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slavic mythology/archive1]] 

message: The article about Kopernik needs attention.
The usuall stuff-deletions of refernced sources, trying to prove that he was an ethnic German etc.
--Molobo 20:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mikołaj Kopernik]]

message: Alex Bakharev started a discussion Was the Holodomor genocide? Please comment on talk page--Yakudza 09:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Holodomor]] 

message: At Talk:Polish Biographical Dictionary, were I have started a RM procedure, User:Francis Schonken is challenging the 'Polish Cabal' to take part in the vote. I feel we should oblidge him :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Polish CabalTM argument is now being used at Wikipedia talk:No factions of belief and at Village pump (news). And of course it's an old popular at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło. :) I wonder if we should list all the mentions of the Polish cabal - it could be fun :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks God Almighty we have our Secret Polish Cabal™ to guide us in these times of uncertainty... //Halibutt 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSB move 

message: I have been thinking that 1) this article needs much attention but 2) it would not be that hard to make it into a FA, especially if we try to stay out of controversial areas.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO the summary of Polish history at the beginning of that article seems unnecessary unnecessarily long, as there already is a summary of the topic at Poland, which is where I imagine most readers of History of Poland would link from. Olessi 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think that WP:LEAD is an obligatory part of every article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking more of a brief intro ala History of France. I can see how a copyedited summary would be useful, however. Olessi 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History of Poland]]

message: 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. 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 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Prussia]]

message: In Polish Corridor, 
A user appeared that seems to try portay Hitler as trying to get peace with Poland being portayed as "refusing". He removed several sources I provided as to Hitler's real intentions. 
He also uses data from military presecence to claim German majority in the region.
The same is done in Polish September Campaign, where sources showing Hitler's real intentions have been deleted by the user or changed to POW way that downplayes Hitler's agression and true intentions.
For example despite the fact that a source states
The proposal served to practically subordinate Poland to the Axis and the Anti-Comintern Bloc. Warsaw refused this in order to retain its independence the user changed it to Poland, however, feared for its sovereignty and questioned Germany's motivations indicating an irrational motive on behalf of Poland.
Further changes of the user are worrying.
For example he changes German agresssion into "German aggression". 
The sentence 
With Poland refusing to abandon its sovereignty to German demands, Germany withdrew from both the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact
has been changed  to :
With Poland refusing its demands, Germany withdrew from both the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact
And so on. 
Please react to this.
--Molobo 09:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some very worrying edits

message: See here:
Please vote for keeping this article.
--Molobo 11:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NKVD massacres of prisoners was proposed to be deleted

message: Feels like deja vu, only I am on the other side of the mirror now :) Comments welcomed at WP:CfD vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Poezja śpiewana (Category) to Sung poetry 

message: 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" :
User doubts Hitler wanted war and Lebensraum in East and pursuses changes to indicate he wanted peace with Poland:
Hitler wanted to settle territorial issues but Poland didn't trust him:
No comments. I even went as far to give links but the user deletes them as POV.
--Molobo 09:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler wanted peace with Poland and Nazi's only wanted to unite Germany ?...

message: I have spent the entire day improving the article and I believe it has now reached PR status. Comments appreciated. Not much need to be done I believe before this can go to FAC. All assistance you can offer in improving this article would be much appreciated. Dziadek certainly deserves our efforts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Józef Piłsudski/archive1]]

message: I don't support sockpuppetry, be it by Russian, Polish or Martian editors. Considering that , who registered only today, seems quite familiar not only with wikipedia syntax, but with Irpen's and Ghirla's edits stance on Polish articles, as well as his 'Polish POV-pushing', I feel very strongly that some more experienced wiki editor is engaging in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. I sincerly hope it is none of 'us', I am afraid 'hope is mother of fools' in this case. Whoever you are, please stop this behaviour and use your real account, whoever you are. Such behaviour is never helpful, no matter what side and POV do you represent/fight. And be aware that sockpuppetry is tracable and a good ground for a long term ban.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My "stance" to Polish articles? Interesting. Thanks. As for the rest, I entirely agree. With Witkacy's departure, one and a half fierce Polonophile POV pusher with attitude issues is more than enough. --Irpen 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Reichenbach: STOP 

message: Could somebody restore the neutrality to article on Toruń. Right now there is a lot of Helgalism's in that Scinurea and Matthead added, Including some unsourced Volteir's propaganda about the usual "despicable" Poles(and we all know how Voltair loved Poland and Catholics  anyway). All of which contradicts information on the website of the city. Oh and information how r Germany was forced by British and Polish actions to remilitarise contains to be presented in discussion on Polish Corridor, just as glorification of Prussia.
--Molobo 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toruń's Helgalisms 

message: User Matthead started to delete information on anti-semitism from several articles, please help:
--Molobo 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Matthead started to delete information on anti-semitism 

message: After reading the stuff above, I suggest Molobo should be banned from editing Wikipedia. His actions bring the project into disrepute. He has been given plenty of opportunities to reform. Enough is enough. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: During the time of his last block, most articles in which he had been busy were brought to a compromise, for example cities related to Copernicus like Torun. Editors finally could focus on contributing to Wikipedia rather than wasting time for cleaning up "Molobedia". Since he is back, trouble is back, as he e.g. needed to insert his POV in EB1911-based biographies on Germans that died before 1870. And today, he accused me right here of "info about brutal opression of Czechs by German Reich-deleted by Matthead", based on  my edit, before removing his lie an hour later. A permanent block from editing, except on his user page, is the only thing that can stop his habits. Like during his last block, he can still "contribute" to Wikipedia by listing the links he considers interesting. Other users then can be inspired by these - or not. --Matthead 18:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am engaging in discussion and hoping for solution to the problem in a civil manner. Why do you have problem with that Ghirla ?--Molobo 17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I neither broke any rule, nor engaged in revert wars Irpen. Anyway I am limiting my activity due to studies for about a month anyway. --Molobo 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As you are still editing, please moderate your attitude now. Thanks, Kusma (討論) 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like he isn't... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't Molobo be blocked permanently? 

message: I have moved the board, as was proposed and discussed above. I have also done some eye-candy changes to our main page. I have significantly redesigned the awards section, and on that note see the formal proposal for the The Polish Barnstar of National Merit. Please also add your name to the new 'Participants list' which Elonka started; I think that a brief description of one's 'specialization' may be a nice touch, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues after the move

message: Recently our dear collegue, Ghirlandajo, has suggested there that "It seems to me that every opposer is Polish. One ethnic community cannot dictate its terms to Wikipedia, hence their votes should be discounted." Perhaps some of you would like to comment on his eloquent critique of the voting structure and this novel idea to reach consensus by excluding an obviously biased (Polish) party... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about fighting your own battles, rather than asking other people to do it for you? --Elonka 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? What battle? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Piotrus can you provide link/links to suport your claims?  If it is true what you are saying then, maybe we should do Ghirlandajo a favour and present that "idea" to the Arbitration Committee so they may comment it? Comments? Mieciu K 00:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that on the merits, Ghirla is right here. Persistence with forcing English readers use/read non-English characters seems like a Polonization of English attempt. Russian and Ukrainian names are always transliterated to English characters, not to some obscure latin variants, like Drahomanivka or Lacinka. However, no one is prohibited from submitting it to ArbCom. This would be  fun to watch case, though a hopelessly short one IMO. --Irpen 00:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here you go, Mieciu.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will not comment the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) dispiute since it is not my specialisation. But Ghirla's comments that the votes or opinions of wikipedians of one ethnic origin (polish) should be regarded as less valuable than the votes or opinions of other wikipedians can be considered pure trolling. We should react to such uncivil comments. Mieciu K 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sure that most other wikipedians would simply ignore his racist attack, although it does appear that those who support him seem to be quite vocal at the moment. But I am sure reason and civility will prevail, as it has always done on Wiki. For the future reference, if anybody deems any behaviour (Ghirla's, mine, etc.) uncivil the WP:CCD is a good place to bring it up.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I had not interacted with Ukrained, but from the edits above it does appear he is indeed in need of cooling down. On the other hand, seeing as much of his problems stirr from interractions with Ghirla I'd suggest that advising one's fellow co-editor to be more civil may result in the other side being civil as well. Especially if you don't support the tone of Ghirla's message, perhaps you could talk to him about it on the talk?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, no Piotrus, not Grirla, but myself is the main issue the UA-nationalists are conserned about (see for instance this unspeakable fellow, who, as Ukrained, both happen to be Wikifriends of Molobo). I am not pleased (neither conserned) with this honor but Ghirla they view as just a Russian chauvinist while myself, they view as Isidore the Apostate :). Funny enough, it is the nationalists in Ukraine rather than the moderates like myself (and most Ukrainian editors) are the fringe outcasts (see for instance the book by Andrew Wilson (historian)). Now, be sure, I do tell Ghirla when he goes over the top. OTOH, on the merits IMO he is much more rarely wrong than it may seem from your end. As far as diatrics are conserned, I am really ticked off every time someone corrects things I write by crossing "l"s and other thingies as if I am writing the Polish people/towns wrongly. I am trying my best to write them in English. We have an ambiguity about the usage of diatrics. General English usage has little ambiguity as to what letters are English and what aren't. Neither Ukrainian, nor Russian Wikipedians have any problem with that. I hate to use ethnic words, but please try to understand that many (if not most) non-Polish (sorry) editors, find the imposition on diatrics into the English Wikipedia rather annoying. --Irpen 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)]] 

message: Although the  is pretty good, it would be nice if we had an equivalent of , i.e. one where we could say that 'this image was published in Poland before...?' thus is in public domain. See also #Template:PolandGov rewrite.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish PD? 

message: This came up at the translation desk. I wouldn't be surprised if it is nonsense and can be speedily deleted. Please either tag it with a speedy tag with explanation that you understand what it is about or comment at WP:PNT (or translate it if it is useful). Thanks, Kusma (討論) 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is/was nonsense. Someone writing about himself, about how he likes drinking vinegar (ocet in Polish. Mieciu K 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I have deleted it. Kusma (討論) 00:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pije ocet]] 

message: It has been proposed below that Zygmunt III Vasa be renamed and moved to Sigismund III Vasa. RM vote is at Talk:Zygmunt III Vasa.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Talk:Zygmunt II August and Talk:Zygmunt I the Old. Perhaps I should warn some readers that 'Polish nationals [who] force Polish spelling on various articles' seem to be discouraged from partcipating in this discussion, as the issue should be decided preferably by the 'consensus by the non-Polish majority of the Wikipedia community'. After careful consideration of this, I can see the merit of the above logic. After all we can safely assume that Poles, being obviously POVed in the matters of Poland, should be stopped from contributing to the Poland-related articles. Flawless logic, I agree.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And this is the same style Polonization of English discussed a couple of sections above. I think I will add the issue to Polonization article, along with the introduction of diatrics into an English media (of which one is Wikipedia). In no way I want to offend anyone's sensitivities. But it amazes me that my colleagues here can't see how the most commonly used names should be used as you can find in other encyclopedias. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) actually prevails over other rules which come into play only when the name isn't clearly defined by the UE which says: If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. For example, Christopher Columbus, Venice. Why Columbus but Zygmunt? --Irpen 03:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:POINT, WP:NOR, and interrupting a started WP:RM vote. Irpen, are you feeling all right?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish monarchs, episode #56 

message: Some Lithuanian user claims that Armia Krajowa worked side by side with Germans and in 1941 Germans begun arming Armia Krajowa with arms quote "sixty horse carts of weapons". Seems very dubious. Somebody should check it out.
Most of Armia Krajowa article looks now like it was a para-military organisation of Nazi Germany, anyway.
--Molobo 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked for some clarifications on talk. Lithuanian referencs are better then no references, but they are even harder to verify then Polish (there are less lt-speakers and the language is quite different from your average Slavic language). If the references can be confirmed as academic lt refs and/or English academic refs supporting them can be found, then the modifications should stay. Otherwise...we will see. They are certainly controversial, but before they are removed some sources to the contrary would be useful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armia Krajowa in need of attention. 

message: I have decided that there is a limit to the number of accusations I can take regarding this board being the 'Polish Cabal' and me being its head cabalist. I have filled a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader. You are welcome to comment in the 'comment' section, as well as - if you feel you have personally been influeced by this case - to make a note of it in the 'Who's involved?' section. I am sure that the fact that I am notifying this board about the mediation case will be used as further evidence of me using this board to "call for support", I nonetheless am taking this chance as I believe I was not the only one offended by the 'Polish Cabal' argument.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation requested by me in the Polish Cabal case 

message: There is a proposal to move Wladyslaw Jagiello to one of two (!) names: Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland and Wladyslaw Jagiello of Lithuania, King of Poland.  The page has been moved even before the vote ended.  Feel free to cast your vote (if you can find it due to the circular redirects). Appleseed (Talk) 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is currently at Wladyslaw II Jagiellon of Poland.  I tried to restore it pending the result of the voting but was unable to. Appleseed (Talk) 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A side-question: why aren't we using polish diacritics? I recall seeing many pages under their native names, with many  redirects... Misza13 T C 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not all users can see them.  On many computers, they just show up as little boxes.  They also make it difficult for non-Poles to correctly link to articles, since including the proper diacritic (especially when someone is not familiar with the Polish language) can be very difficult. --Elonka 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm... So I guess Wrocław, Poznań, Gdańsk, Wisła (why isn't the river the main article?), Aleksander Kwaśniewski, Jarosław Kaczyński and Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz are all in violation with this guideline? ;-) Misza13 T C 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I was under the impression that the diactrics display propoerly on all computers since Wikimedia software was updated some months (years) ago. Problems may appear is some strange html is used in the article, or in some very odd symbol not supported by unicode, and possibly some very old operating systems may have some issues with unicode in general. I believe Wikipedia:Unicode should have relavant information (but it doesn't seem to be very useful), so you may want to enquire at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for more info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that if indeed on 'many computers' the Polish diactrics in Wikipedia articles are displayed incorrectly, then I would certainly argue they should not be used on en-wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Poland-related articles with diacritics are a small fraction of the WP articles that use non-English letters, so I don't understand all the negative attention.  When you're done with the Polonization article, you may want to take a look here and update the Germanisation article. Appleseed (Talk) 19:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not start closer at home with :Category:Russian loanwords?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, while the merit of some of the articles in this cat (AfD-ebility) may be subject to the dispute, note that the article titles consist exclusivley of English characters. I am familiar with one cyrillic typed article title "Добрий вечір, тобі..." and I said elsewhere that it needs moved to the English latin letters. Like, say Den Pobedy song. Only obscurity of this Dobry Vechir song article is the reason why I didn't raise the issue. Loanwords is a legitimate issue. Using non-English symbols is a separate one. --Irpen 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some diacritics are widely accepted in English, others not so much. For example, ä, ö, and ñ are typically accepted. The use of ß and ł is disputed; typically, the weirdo foreign characters have to go if the article is about a person widely known in English in non-scholarly publications (like Michael Groß, whose article is at Michael Gross although Groß and Gross are considered different names in Germany). Anyway, we have  and  to control the "problem" when there is one. In general, I'd rather find articles under their native name with all the diacritical glory. Why should we transliterate anything that is not a foreign script? For things that do need transliteration, I support  redirects in Arabic, Cyrillic, Chinese, whatever script, to make it easy to find the article even without knowing our method of transliteration. Kusma (討論) 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference, as far as I am concerned, is about the alphabets. En-wiki uses the Latin alphabet, and Polish diactrical letters are considered a part of it. Cyrillic is not Latin, just as various Japanese, Chineese or other alphabets, and thus are not used as ilinks or article names.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for pointint that out. I should have said, more correctly, that we seem to be using the letters found in Alphabets derived from the Latin. However, interestingly, let's look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): Article titles should use the Latin alphabet, not any other alphabets or other writing systems. This raises a logical question whether an 'alphabet derived from Latin' is considered Latin or not for the purpose of this definition, especially if we define the 'alphabet derived from Latin' as the one using diactrics and note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Disputed issues states: There is disagreement over what article title to use when a native name uses the Latin alphabet with diacritics (or "accent marks") but general English usage omits the diacritics. A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics, which was a majority but was not considered to be a consensus. This would indicate for me that there diactric letters are considered part of the Latin alphabet for the purpose of the WP:NC(UE) definition. There is a proposed policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics), although I am afraid it still needs a lot of work.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections to Latin-based diacritics. I do prefer the usage of English-language terminology if it is more common than the native language term (for instance Munich instead of München), but I don't support the removal of diacritics if there is no common English name (I support Fürth instead of Fuerth or Furth, Weißenburg instead of Weissenburg, Łódź instead of Lodz, etc.). Olessi 02:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double proposal to move 

message: Does anyone know why we have :Category:Polish historical departments (1806-1815) when the Duchy wasn't formed until 1807? Appleseed (Talk) 21:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. But it's an anon created category. I'd recomend going to WP:CFD and renaming this category if nobody has any better idea.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duchy of Warsaw 

message: I found :Template:German. I think it is useful to indicate articles translated from national wikis when the original articles are not referenced, to give the users some idea where the information comes from. Do you think we should create a :Template:Polish?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here ya go! Olessi 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think those template should also have corresponding categories, so we can seasily see which articles are based on translations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is m:instruction creep. These templates are there just to provide author attribution. The lack of sources (or wrong language of sources; often many English-language ones exist and should be cited instead of the original ones) is a different problem. Kusma (討論) 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting template 

message: Check: is Jagiellonczyk the precise feminine form of Jagiello? does it have those difficult diacritical letters? Maed 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No and yes. Jagiellończyk is a diminuative of Jagiełło, or perhaps more correctly, an adjective meaning 'of the Jagiellonian dynasty'. Or another one of those historical inventions that make our life more complicated on Wiki :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jagiello

message: The voting on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło has apparently been restarted.  There is also a proposal to move Talk:Zygmunt II August. Appleseed (Talk) 12:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as Zygmunt I the Old and Zygmunt III Waza.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moves 

message: Some issues:
1) shouldn't :Category:Polish noble families be renamed into :Category:Polish nobility families of :Category:Polish szlachta families?
2) it seems logical that all families in List_of_szlachta#By_family should have a subcategory in this category, and vice versa, that all families with their own subcategory should have be listed there. Also, it probably would not be a bad idea to split of the 'list by family' to its own subarticle, with the same name as the the category
3) however Wikipedia is not an address book or such, so we should definietly not try to list all noble families, only notable one. Some time ago I took a stab at defining what is a notable (important) noble family, see header at List_of_szlachta#By_family. But I think we should have a more clear definition. What do you think about a criteria: at least two members mentioned in Polski Słownik Biograficzny and/or PWN encyklopedia?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Polish noble families]] 

message: Recentely Ghirlandajo's has gone further in his view, while he proposed recentely that Poles should have their votes deleted based on the fact that they are...Poles, now he claims Polish media can't be used as source since  I quote:"Polish media are severly biased against Russia" "their lies about Russia have been exposed".
The statement can be found here:
If somebody has a thought how to stop this attitude he is welcomed to comment. I find that it is impossible to deal with Ghirlandajo as he openly attacks sources and contributors on basis of their nationality. It is not only in regards to Poles. Here he calls a user from Bulgaria "new Bulgarian pest" 
--Molobo 12:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is in order? Or another another RfC? Although as the first one didn't seem to change his behaviour, I am not sure if a more radical alternatives should not be considered. On the other hand, I would recommend trying mediation before them - who knows, maybe this time it will help.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies of Polish media 

message: Could someone advise me how do Teutonic titles translate into english? I Know the main ones liek the Grand Master, komtur and Great Treasurer, but there were some other ones like "Wielki Szafarz" and "Wielki Mincerz" that I have no clue how to translate it into English.
Thanks in advance.
Norum 9.9.06
:This link gives the following translations:
During the first twenty years of its existence, the institutional structure of the Order developed and stabilized. The Teutonic Order followed the lead of the Templars and Hospitallers by creating a system of provinces. Unlike monastic orders composed of independent abbeys, the Teutonic Knights had a hierarchical chain of command with commanderies (house, Kommende) at the lowest level. Provinces or bailiwicks (Ballei, Komturei) were parts of "countries" that composed the Order as a whole. Its first independent rule was adopted in 1264.
The officials governing the Teutonic Order at the various levels were commander (Komtur, preceptor) at the local level, province commander (Landkomtur), national commander (Landmeister), and grand master (Hochmeister, magister). The highest leadership positions (including grand master, grand commander [Grosskomtur], marshal [Ordensmarschall], draper or quartermaster [Trapier], hospitaller [Spittler], and treasurer [Tressler]) were elected by the general chapter.
Membership of this mostly German-speaking order was composed of various, distinct classes: knights, priests, and other brothers (lay brothers, sisters, and "familiars"). There was a large number of people who supported the professed members of the Order, ranging from auxiliary knights to slaves. The highest ranking were secular knights, serving for free. Turcopoles (Greek for "son of Turk") were originally probably lightly-armed, half-breed cavalry whose name applied to Turkish mercenaries employed in the Byzantine army, later the term was adopted by the military orders. There were attendants called squires (knechte), and sergeants-at-arms. Footsoldiers were usually coerced from the local peasantry. Sister-aids (halpswesteren) were employed as domestics as were halpbrüderen; they took religious vows. Married and single lay domestics also were employed by the Order. Artisans and laborers (e.g., gardeners, carpenters, masons) worked for charity or wages. Many serfs and slaves were owned by the Order. 
:Hopefully that is helpful. Olessi 00:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teutonic Knights 

message: Nothing unusuall, another person who declared his intention to oppose "Polish-nationalistic minority".
The user quickly made a list of proposed changes and is adressing people to support him, Irpen, Ghirla, Dr. Dan etc. . Might be valuable to see his proposals...
--Molobo 19:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points.  KonradWallenrod 07:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Polish-nationalistic minority"  in Wiki 

message: A reader wrote in to info-en to request a translation of :pl:Siemiatycze to English, to replace the stub that is currently at Siemiatycze.  Your assistance in fulfilling this requestion would be greatly appreciated. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for translation 

message: User:Marrtel asks:  should Polish monarch articles use diacritics?  I believe previous polls have already demonstrated that the WP community favors their use. Appleseed (Talk) 13:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this poll could have very large consequences, I strongly invite everybody to read through the discussion and vote as they feel is appopriate.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diacritics poll 

message: User Matthead had decided to change the category of people born in Gdansk to born in Gdansk-Danzig.
I think that such changes should be avoided without consultations and that it is an unnecessary one, since it refers to current city, and the the people born in the past have the Germanised name in their entries. Anyway this is annoying, soon we shall have people born in Warsaw-Warschau.
--Molobo 00:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, how about People born in Brest-Brisk-Biarescia-'Brest-Litovsk'-'Brzesc Litewski'? I agree, the move is not well-thought. `'mikka (t) 01:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, it should simply be "List ... Gdańsk". Olessi 03:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases the naming of such lists/categories can be made neutral by usage of adjectival forms (cf. List of Varsovians, Famous Leopolitans, and so on). However, I don't believe there could be a single Polish-German-Latin root for people born in Gdańsk/Danzig/Gyddanzyk/Dantzik... //Halibutt 08:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Soon someone will propose "List of Gedanians-Danzigers". We won't escape this problem. ProudPomeranian 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Gdansk absurdity. 

message: Talk:Zygmunt I the Old -> Sigismund I the Old.  Appleseed (Talk) 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move 

message: A new target of Matthead's edits is Marcin Kromer, Matthead insists on  changing his name to Martin Cromer despite the fact that it isn't supported by sources
--Molobo 11:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marcin Kromer changed to Martin Cromer by Matthead 

message: Talk:Kazimierz II the Just -> Casimir II the Just. Appleseed (Talk) 20:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another proposal to move 

message: User Ghirandajo is deleting references about cultural differences among Slavic people and inserts unsourced statements that are very biased. The same is done on article regarding Panslavism.
Here and here
--Molobo 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's news? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghirlandajo is deleting references and replacing with some unsourced statements 

message: Talk:Kazimierz IV Jagiellon -> Casimir IV Jagiellon. Appleseed (Talk) 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article move 

message: And so we have Kuiavian-Pomeranian Voivodship and other nice things... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The EU uses Kujawsko-pomorskie Voivodship, see . In the case of German government subdivisions, we managed to end a long conflict by agreeing to use EU terminology (unfortunately the translation guide does not include Polish topics yet). Kusma (討論) 19:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  August III the Saxon was also moved without WP:RM.  I reverted the move temporarily and encouraged the editor to use WP:RM, but he refuses.  Another user (200+ edits, perhaps a sock?) is helping him revert me, so I can't restore the page without 3RR. Appleseed (Talk) 19:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do not lie and state that I am being helped or make it seem like I am partnered with Henq. The naming conventions are on the side of Augustus III of Poland, since very, very few people in English call him "the Saxon" or a translation of any other variant Polish form. I explicitly told you this held true for Augustus III and not August II, because I haven't investigated the usage for him. Charles 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a statement.  Notice the question mark.  It's common on WP to be wary of new users.  And if you're so sure that your proposed name is the right one, then I'm sure WP:RM will be a breeze. Appleseed (Talk) 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been such a breeze that the vote would not have mattered. Hence the move in accordance with existing conventions. Elaborate on your sock puppet accusations (i.e. sockpuppet of whom) in addition to your other slander (i.e. me being helped to block your edits... a joke, really, since Henq is reaffirming what I said about conventions). A sockpuppet check would show that Henq and me are not the same person. Charles 20:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, I'll concede I jumped the gun by suggesting without proof that Henq may be a sockpuppet.  Now, in the spirit of collaboration, would you restore the page and propose your move at WP:RM? Appleseed (Talk) 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If any of Logologist's sockpuppet votes made a difference between moving and not moving a page, do point them out so we can return the pages to their original places.  However, I'm not sure what "tricks" you're referring to.  As you pointed out, the pages have managed to stay at their current location for a long time, so the only thing that I would consider a trick would be to unilaterally move them and to force me to use WP:RM to change them.  Elonka has recently used WP:RM to good effect.  Indeed,  I have voted in favor of some of her proposals.  It doesn't have to be this painful. Appleseed (Talk) 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the voivodships need to be fixed and moved back to their English names IMO, just as many other names formed in part with names of geographic regions. Why not use English names when we have'em? On the other hand I'm not sure if doing it right now - and with so much bad blood spilled around lately - is the best idea. Perhaps we could take a deep breath and leave those articles for some week or so? //Halibutt 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shilkanni now moving geography articles 

message: Information on persecution of Poles is being deleted from articles on Otto von Bismarck and German Empire. I added references on Bismarck's policy and treatment of Poles but it is continued deleted regardless by a vandal that seems to be stalking me and deleting my every edit that speaks about situation of Poles in Germany. Please help resolve this situation.
--Molobo 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in articles on Otto von Bismarck and  German Empire 

message: Here is what happens :
The page you tried to save was blocked by the spam filter because it contained a link to a blacklisted website. If you didn't add the link (see below), it was probably already in the current version of the page. Alternately, it might have been added by spyware on your computer.
You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.
If you believe that the link should not be listed on the spam blacklist, or that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, please leave a request on the spam blacklist talk page. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:
It really is annoying and the link I can't find. 
--Molobo 21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked for help at the spam blacklist page on meta. Kusma (討論) 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and someone should archive this page. That and a binary search should help find where the offending link to www.cieszyn.naszemiasto.pl has been inserted. Kusma (討論) 01:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't normaly edit this page