User talk:Piotrus

Thanks for this. Regrettably, Wikipedia:Etiquette guideline is never read frequently enough around here. --Poeticbent talk 03:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article testament of Bolesław III Krzywousty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

First of all, thanks for your comment, having been on Wikipedia for a long time, I know you as a responsible and sensitive contributor. Despite that, I was a bit surprised by your warning. I am sure you are aware that some users on Wikipedia, regardless of their nationality, edit Wikipedia with a nationalist agenda. If memory doesn't fail me, we have both been involved in a couple of disputes with some Russian users engaged in such actions. It is my belief that users who only try to paint their own nation in the most positive pictures are not contributing as well as they could on Wikipedia. Of course every contributor is always welcome, but you know just as well as I do that many edit wars are fought precisely over this issue - nationalists from two sides who clash with each other. Regarding Poeticbent, I stand behind my words. He gladly deletes content if it's not favouring Poland and I don't particularly likes his habit of taking legitimate warnings and moving them to the user pages of those who had issue them. May I respectfully ask how you would consider a Russian user who deleted content not favouring Russia and, if warned by you, pasted your warning on your own talk page? Regards JdeJ (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lód, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Piotrus,

Today I tried to add a citation to the page about Jozef Haller. I do not know if I was successful. I got your message of acknowledgement. Thank you.

Please let me know if I did it correctly.

The maps that I uploaded to the Internet on my website from the Battle of Warsaw are all over Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for them. The are from the book Cud ha Wisla by Arciszewski. I'd like to learn how to do this correctly so I can add all the appropriate citations to the articles on Wiki. I'd hate to be accused of academic dishonesty when I am so close to my PhD.

Regards, Bob Tarwacki Fop145 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Warsaw Armoured Motorized Brigade, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hi Piotrus, as one of the editors of Bombing of Dresden in World War II, would you mind commenting here about a possible name change? There is a proposal to call the article simply Bombing of Dresden. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an outstanding article! Supported as last time, thanks for the heads up. Rudget. 16:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who is correct? Is his real last name Burroughs OR Burrows. It seams to be posted both ways all over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.244.239 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anon, I honestly don't have any idea what you are asking. Perhaps you should try the WP:RD? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is, of course, Dallas Frederick Burroughs. I would know this as a New Yorker growing up in the golden age of TV. Bizarre place to ask, though! :-) PētersV (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you saw my comments here, but I would to like to chat/write as well. We grad students have to stick together on wikipedia! Drop me a line when you have some free time. The semester has just started for me, but next week I will have fallen into the teaching rhythm again. Awadewit | talk 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your essay looks very interesting - I will spend some time reading it over the weekend. I was thinking about having my students do a wiki-essay this semester - having them write a collaborative essay at the end of the semester in groups of four or so. We'll see what happens.

• I like the idea of a grad student organization - there must be lots of us here. Do you know of one? I don't. Maria might be interested in joining as well. I think that if we unite our forces, it might be easier to convince "the establishment" that this enterprise and wikis more generally are a good idea. I am particularly interested in doing this because I think that it could promote collaborate work in the humanities more generally. :) I don't know about sociology, but in English, we tend to work alone. In monkish cells, you might say.

• In my field, there is a lot of resistance to Wikipedia and to technology in general, I'm afraid. I just went to the Modern Language Association conference at the end of December (it is the annual English professor conference) at which hopefully one sees emerging trends. I saw some exciting work with technology, but it was being done by graduate students. I saw more fear of electronic publishing and lists of problems with technology than ways to overcome those problems (rather typical of my discipline, I'm afraid) from actual professors. I have been very reticent to tell any professors about my work on Wikipedia because of these attitudes. I am already a bit of a rabble rouser (I am involved in trying to organize a graduate student union), so I figured one controversial issue was enough. However, perhaps I have nothing left to lose? :) Awadewit | talk 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick note: I handed out an extra credit assignment to my students yesterday: Based on a reading of The New York Times and others sources, how neutral is Wikipedia's Pakistan article? I urged them to look at the WP:NPOV policy and the FA criteria. I told a couple of other instructors about it and they thought it would make a great assignment. I'm planning on doing something similar for my "Evidence and sources" unit. Thanks for the idea! Awadewit | talk 00:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you oblige? Or perhaps find someone who knows enough on the topic.

thanks

Dez82

Dez82 (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Map of battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to say "< something > Lordship", but I do not know of an accurate way of translated the word or idea of Standes-. I don't think "state country" is a construction which has ever been used in English. The idea in English is that a country is a type of state as it is and since the idea of state and country overlap, combining them as a term in English doesn't make so much sense. "Free state" might be an idea, but I would look for a term which is closer to one used for immediate states, rather than something that is mediatized. This article de:Standesherr (Deutscher Bund) links back to mediatization. Autonomous lordship maybe? If the English term cannot be determined, I would use either the German or the Polish form, which ever appears more in English literature. Charles 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please do something to restrain your compatriots? In their zeal to prevent this purely historical article from mentioning its title, they have now three times introduced statements which will (to any English-speaker who is simply trying to read the article) outright falsehood. This is difficult enough to explain without this sort of thing.

If necessary, I will simply tag the article as inaccurate; but if I do, I shall also pursue other modes of dispute resolution, which they are likely to find less agreeable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a word with Poeticbent; I have listed his blankings there and on his talk page. He has removed all the information which suggested that a German-speaker (or indeed an anglophone) ever had anything to do with Pless; I suppose I should admire the skill with which he has done so while leaving only one major falsehood; but he has, in the process, removed or falsified all the sourced material. I will attempt to archive, to leave room so you can explain to me why I should not treat this as academic and intellectual fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to go off line for some time; for one thing, I've enjoyed just about enough of this. I will let you know when I see something, but you may get quicker results by watching my Talk page for a while. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I archived more than half the sections, but it doesn't seem to have helped. Maybe I should unsub from Signpost. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply at User talk:Pmanderson or a copy at Talk:Duchy of Pless. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 06:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are substantially identical and substantially false; I have responded at Talk:Duchy of Pless. They are largely claims of WP:COPYVIO, which is a personal attack. I expect a retraction. I shall be filing a Request for Mediation; I will not be naming you as a party, but you are welcome to join. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Duchy of Pless. If you want to take part, please remember both to add yourself as a party and to sign agreement to Mediation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider doing an edit yourself; I am not enamoured of my wording, but I would like to see the facts back. At that point, I can continue researching the Hochbergs, seeing when they became Princes, and if the German Wikipedia is right they became Dukes in the Prussian peerage in 1905. (The facts should be clear enough from my edit, and PB has substantially quoted one of my sources.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've commented on talk. I am tempted to obey Piotrus' Principle and put that explanation directly into text, but your edit summary deserved discussion. Do we want to split the article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note to Molobo trying to explain what I actually want. Could you remind him that some users are genuinely neutral, and trying to write articles about the facts in comprehensible English? We Andersons are neither German nor Polish.

And could you disabuse him of the notion that "claims" is neutral?

I am tempted to write an RFC strictly on the question of whether rewriting an article in order to remove the article title is advisable. Would you be willing to endorse this?

I really don't want to go further; sanctions against unreasonable Poles will only encourage unreasonable Germans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to do another revision. This edit, in which Poeticbent introduces another, entirely redundant paragraph on Germanization, and this edit, with its entirely frivolous tag, come close to persuading me to pursue dispute resolution on conduct; it is only your assurance that Poeticbent has been a useful editor which keeps me from doing so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you unite the two paragraphs about Germanization, and deal with Molobo's hysterical tag about a book he has not read? If it is still there in 24 hours, I will take further steps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; you have behaved as I would expect of a Polish nobleman. I'm sorry not to be able to support you over Casimir; but I hope you will not consider the question one of much importance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new (old) year (for old calendar people)

Сію, вію, посіваю, з Новим роком поздоровляю! I sow, I sow, I sow around you, with the New Year I send you health

На щастя, на здоров'я та на Новий рік, For good luck, for good health in the New Year

Щоб уродило краще, ніж торік, - So that everything would bring a better harvest than that year

Жито, пшениця і всяка пашниця, Rye, wheat and other grains

Коноплі під стелю на велику куделю. Hemp up to your ceiling in a huge pot

Будьте здорові з Новим роком та з Василем! Be healthy with the New Year and with the feats of St Basils

Дай, Боже!

God give you!

Bandurist (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, your edit summary says to "see talk", but you didn't leave a message there. If you disagree with the merge, you should say so on the talk page and leave the tags so that others can weigh in. Shutting down potential discussion by removing the tags is poor form. Please restore the tags so that we can discuss the merge. Pagrashtak 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first section is coming up on its two-year anniversary. Wikipedia's attitudes regarding in-universe content have change since then, and I believe you're aware of that. I'm not sure how the last section is applicable. You're asking for editors to not create new clan pages, which I agree with. Are you directing me to that section because of the list of clans you wrote there? Clan Mongoose is on that list, but you just completed that merge, so I don't know why that should preclude other merges. In any event, that last section is a statement and not a discussion. I'll ask you again to restore the tags and let the merge discussion take place. Pagrashtak 18:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning Talk:BattleTech? The only comment besides yours under the Clans section says "Let's keep the 4 major clans and merge the rest of them". I don't know which four are the major ones, but we have more than four clan articles, so it appears there is some support for at least some of the merges. I don't agree that the clans are are notable as Harry Potter. Pagrashtak 18:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:Piotrusbot your account or not? I was going to block it, but I thought I'd ask first. Thanks. Acalamari 21:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine then: I saw the name come up in the new user log, and thought I'd ask. I've welcomed some of the accounts created to do with the class. Good luck with your teaching then. :) Acalamari 22:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. If you need anything, let me know, and I'll see if I can help out or not. Good luck with the project, and with the images. :) Acalamari 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read and chack the style. Thanks Bandurist (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stanislaw lem his master voice francisco alves editora rio de janeiro 1991.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of our future topics (February 11th) is about writing an article from scratch. Since you have a very respectable ammount of DYKs, i was wondering if you could write said article? The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, do what you think wil create a good article. Just be sure to link to it at the above page. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and thanks for joining/clarifying your active status in the Polish history task force. As you probably have noticed, we are undergoing a reorganization after a substantial period of inactivity and a loss of membership followed by renewed interest and the organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject History. As you are aware, we have recently merged the even less active Polish History Project into Wikipedia:WikiProject European history/Polish history task force, I notice several new members of the project with that area of interest, I've already suggested to them that they also join the task force, but you might encourage them as well if you have an interest in getting that going. As you probably noticed, I've suggested that editors discuss any ideas you have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history rather than at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history/Polish history task force - but please, when you think there are enough active members of the task force to justify it acting more or less independently, remove that message and start discussing Polish history there. Please though, contribute any ideas you have about the overall organization of the project and review our Strategy page if you get a chance. Thanks and again, Welcome.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Piotrus, I have two requests: 1. Will you delete my wikipedia user page? and 2. Since you have before given me articles to write, if you ever think of any other ones that you think I would like to start, please add them here and I will begin trying to write them (sorry I still haven't gotten to Stefan Fedak). Thanks, Ostap 18:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No not leaving only frustrated. I just plan to start only writing articles. Ostap 19:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just amazed that some POV's still exist. I wan't to avoid disputes. I see you writing articles all the time, that's seems more productive. Ostap 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Ostap 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. 1. Can you send me the Honorverse Image that you posted? my e-mail is crazy_toadz@hotmail.com

2. Your the 7th polish person I saw today. And im not even polish related. Its weard.

Jinque ,from J-C The Heavy Sci-Fi Reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.214.45 (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which HHverse image? Few years ago I had an entire gallery :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Duchy of Pless. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the article's promotion—and on your patience in the face of endless carping and sniping by some of the most incorrigible narcissists and blowhards on the Wikipedia! Nihil novi (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback and insight into this talk would be highly appreciated. Pundit|utter 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have already posted to this project, however I would value your opinion as of a person involved in history disputes, as well as engaged in Eastern Europe articles, and finally as of an administrator (the other editor expressed his interest in having an admin's comment as well). Pundit|utter 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Czech Barnstar of National Merit
		I award you with our highest star for continuous help to our project, kindness, fairness, and for good work. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Polish army in Wilno 1919.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotrus. Could you please check this Polish paper and confirm if the records in the landesarkiv confirm that Jodl was aquited in 1953? (It's at the end) Please respond here Talk:Alfred_Jodl. Thanks. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether you made a slip at the end of your interesting contribution to the discussion page on Jodl. When you wrote: 'That means that Jodl was finally not acquitted; the current version of the article is correct' did you in fact mean incorrect? The link leads to the Wikipedia article on Jodl, which has the story about rehabiliation. Norvo (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Norvo has seriously misunderstood you, could you please on the articles talk page reconfirm the basic facts from the Polish University paper. Also, could you there please also comment on if it in any way differs from the text in the article, which currently is based on the detailed description of the event and its context in the German article from the shoah.de website?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish-Austrian War, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Piotr, there's a discussion on monarch names going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), a discussion which might interest you given your opinions and history with the Polish monarch articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually just heading out on wikibreak, so I won't be able to open any of those until I return. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, does the above request still need fulfilling ? Jackaranga (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finished I hope. Jackaranga (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:MONIAC.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Piotrus! Zastanawiam się czy nie zekować tego hasła, które nie wnosi absolutnie nic nowego do Wikipedii. To jest po prostu dubel. Czy możesz mnie przekonać, że jednak hasło powinno pozostać? Pozdrawiam serdecznie, odpowiedz na polskiej - Łeba —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.233.33 (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish culture during World War II and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any relation to historian Zdzisław Konieczny? Ostap 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is very interesting. Say, on the Armia Krajowa page you asked for a source for Ak involvement in the Pawłokoma massacre. I added a source which I believe says that this is the view held by the Polish National Remembrance Institute. Let me know what you think. Ostap 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cześć Piotrus! Chciałem pogratulować Ci artykułu o Stanisławie Koniecpolskim. Zastanawiałem się czy korzystałeś przy pisaniu tego artykułu jeszcze z innej bibliografii niż ta zamieszczona w przypisach. Jeżeli tak to czy mógłbyś podrzucić jakieś tytuły na stronę mojej dyskusji w polskiej Wikipedii przy odrobinie wolnego czasu? Z góry dziękuje za odpowiedź i pozdrawiam. Adrian84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.213.174 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I have just translated the article you requested from the German Wiki about Dieter Senghaas. (Not two minutes after I finished, someone tagged it with several requests for references, which I don't have, since it's a translation.) If you have any ideas for categories, that would be appreciated, too, since I don't like to do that task. Enjoy! Scbarry (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could use material for the DYK column, perhaps you would like to consider nominating my new article on the Polish Museum, Rapperswil. Nihil novi (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well perservered.--Kiyarrllston 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Sorry I never got round to responding to that last bunch of objections: I was going to, but it takes an awful lot of reading to do so, so I was gearing up to it. As you know, I did read some sources on the dictatorship government and found that section to be spot on apart from half a paragraph (my edit to that paragraph was not reverted by you, which shows your good faith, as always). I knew this article would make it in the end! Now, I expect you are wondering which highly controversial subject to bring to FA next! qp10qp (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted many of your contributions in the Second World War articles, but see you are quite busy with other articles. Can I call on your help when required for the Eastern Front revamp and expansion project I started?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/01/24/episode-40-wikipedias-genetic-makeup/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Piotrus a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- --Nadir D Steinmetz 11:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article E.Wedel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 25 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hunger Plan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 26 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Józef Haller de Hallenburg, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 28 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish culture during World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK hooks look great. You have a wicked sense for the absurd. I made a few wording adjustments and responded to the question about the Museum. I gather you think some inline references would help the Kasztanka article; I'll see what I can do. Frankly, I would have preferred to have devoted last night to something other than a horse, no matter how distinguished! Nihil novi (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in references for "Kasztanka."

But now I've noticed an apparent problem with the "Museum" hook. I didn't understand at first what the reviewer meant about my Museum-website reference not specifically stating who closed the Museum in 1952 or why. I've quoted at DYK what was on that site before, and which has apparently been deleted by the Museum. The Museum may have done this to minimize potential irritants with the Swiss, since a Swiss group is now trying to get the Polish Museum evicted from Rapperswil Castle (which would be a terrific shame). Do you see a possible alternative hook? Perhaps the Museum's collections, after their repatriation in 1927, having been largely destroyed by the Germans in World War II? If you think that's a good idea, could you make the substitution, before they declare the January 24 nominations to be expired? Sorry to intrude on your time. Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and submitted a "Museum" alternative version. Please let me know if you see a problem with it. Nihil novi (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish Museum, Rapperswil, which you nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I changed it to be less annoying. About the article, I apologize but its getting pretty late, however this gives me something to do tomorrow. I will start it then. See you around. Ostap 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the topic seems to already be covered here: Ukrainian War of Independence. Not sure what to do. Ostap 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been started. Please help expand. Ostap 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get at it tonight (hopefully). Nevermind, Bogdan's already started it. Ostap 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you ever come to my Talk page lecturing me. David Lauder (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotruś

Thank you. The point is there existed two 'Warsaw districts' of AK:

(1) the larger one, until beginning 1942 "District of Warsaw - Voivodship" then "Area of Warsaw" it covered ca pre-war Voivodeship of Warsaw excluding Warsaw itself and its suburbs (the Powiat of Warsaw), and

(2) the smaller one, called also "District of Warsaw - City" included the Powiat of Warsaw including Warsaw within administrative borders.

Forms of names show variations, there were also codenames in use. In the table Armia_Krajowa#Structure_and_membership the (1) is specified on the top as "Warsaw Area", the (2) below under "independent areas" - "Warsaw".

The duality is confusing, I was also confused.

Best Regards Jacek

--Kucharski jacek (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drogi Piotrze

W Sub-district VI of Praga (of Armia Krajowa) angielska wikipedia nie chce wyświetlić obrazu, tego który jest w polskiej wersji tego artykułu Obwód VI Praga. Naszarpałem się i nie umiem. Proszę o pomoc, mistrzu.

Jacek--Kucharski jacek (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Piotrus. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Witaj

Podstawowym źródłem do dziejów Władysława Białego pozostaje Janko z Czarnkowa, który rozdziale 45 pisze: Tegoż roku (1379) ... Ludwik wypłacił ... w mieście Gdańsku, dnia 20 października, księciu Władysławowi Białemu resztę pieniędzy, które za ziemie gniewkowską był winien ... Otrzymawszy je książę Biały pokwitowania czyli listów zeznawczych dać nie chciał, i udał się, ze szczupłym orszakiem do miasta Lubeki ... i tam pozostał. Co zamyśla dalej - nie wiadomo. Kronikarz nie wie więc nic o jego powrocie do Polski w latach późniejszych, kronikę pisał aż do 1384r. i o księciu wypowiada się wcale obficie.

O fakcie zaś starania się o koronę polską Janko z Czarnkowa nie informuje wprost choć pisze o przybyciu tam opozycji wielkopolskiej przeciwko rządom Andegawenów. W 1373r. Biały opanował zresztą nie tylko ojcowiznę ale i Gniezno, jakby rzeczywiście zamierzał obalić rządy Andegawenów w Polsce, tak zresztą interpretuje to literatura np. Sroka Stanisław, Piastowie. Leksykon Biograficzny, Kraków 1999, s. 247-248. Kandydatem do korony był więc przede wszystkim w 1373r.

Przejrzałem też Lelewela, pisze on tylko (jak jest w artykule na Wiki), że "udał się do papieża roku 1382, trzynastego września sekuralizacją. Mając te akta był okrzykiem przyjęty przez stronników swoich. Lecz za przybyciem Jadwigii ich liczba się zmiejszała a on sam musiał uchodzić. I dalej że tułał się po Niemczech.

Nie ma tam wprost, że przybył do Polski, a jeśli nawet uznać, że to Lelewel miał na myśli to źródła: Janko, czy Długosz nic o tym nie wspominają

Pozdrawiam 62.111.200.202 (talk) (Zuber) 06:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]