User talk:Mieciu K

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board

Myślę, że to cię zainteresuje :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A przy okazji dzięki za uwagi na temat AK itp. Eh, a teraz muszę wrócić do tej debaty o monarchach (link na nb). Coś czuję, że nie będziemy mieli Kazimierza Wielkiego, tylko trzeciego Casimirusa z Polski :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AS

hi you asked me about the 'official atisemitism' in the pre-war Poland. it's been a while since i was reading about it, but off the top of my head - 'numerus clausus' in the university admissions, limitations on the military service of jewish (religiously) citizens. if you are actually thinking that such laws will be difficult to find, i'll put more effort and create separate Wikipedia article on the antisemitism (and actually, anti-everything-not-catholic) in the pre-war Poland :)

You forgot something

Will the changes I've made to "You forgot Poland" help smooth things out? Ronabop 08:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

roman salute

Hi do you have a source for your recent addition of a statement about was 'some historians' think about the origin of the salute? Paul B 17:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The general problem is that several sources suggest that no actual straight-arm salute existed at all in Roman culture, or at least that we have very little evidence foir it. If you have information otherwise, please provide it as it will be valuable for the article. Paul B 18:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar plan

Yeah, I did do some research, which is why I added the two sentences. The article Madagascar Plan, is not mine, and there is plenty of information available just online about the Polish involvement. The name, madagascar 'plan', has stuck, so perhaps you should add your criticisms to that article, and reduce your admonitions at me. Could you explain what you're talking about? As far as I can see, nothing I added was incorrect (maybe not expanded to the degree you think appropriate?). The madagascar plan was a plan to relocate Polish Jews that was considered by Poland during the years mentioned, which eventually, a couple years later, was considered by Nazi Germany in their attempt to cleanse Europe of Jewish culture (though under different pretenses). What was said that was inaccurate? It was a somewhat vague addition, meant to act as a pointer for those interested in the history (or a seed to germinate an expanded exposition), and also, it seems to me, a fairly significant event during those years that clearly illustrates the growing anti-semitism in Poland - as the section is titled. However, if the information is not appreciated, and if you know simply too much about it to make edits to the page that are more accurate while keeping the ideas, and feel simply wiping the contribution is somehow more appropriate - then by all means, enjoy the page to yourself. I was just trying to help, based on personal curiosity and research. You might be surprised as to what I know (or have researched). I'm always simply here to learn, and also, in this case, explore my Polish heritage. The madagascar plan of the Nazi's was a crime against humanity, as far as I have been able to find. The idea was to move millions of Jews to an area that was determined to be fit to be occupied by only tens of thousands. Is that wrong, and if so, then perhaps we need to discuss who has the rights to write history, if not published historians? His-Story is always in question, where's the truth? -- enlighten me. Cypa 22:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jedwabne Pogrom

"when a detailed study of the event was published by a Polish-American historian Jan T. Gross. The author described the massacre as a pogrom and set out how his research led him to conclude that, contrary to received accounts, the Jews in Jedwabne had been rounded up, clubbed, drowned, gutted or burned to death by mobs of their own non-Jewish neighbors, without any supervision or assistance from an Einsatzgruppe or other German force." - właściwie to było tak, że odkryła ten fakt właśnie Agnieszka Arnold (pisałem o tym w dyskusji do art.) i przekazała zapis na papierze całej ścieżki dźwiękowej Grossowi (Gross pisze o tym w Sąsiadach, skądinąd tytuł też wzięty od Arnold). Piszesz w dyskusji: "That is why the movies by Agnieszka Arnold were held back (probably by the makers themselves) for fear of problems" - to nieprawda. Decyzja o tym, by wstrzymać emisję, zapadła w TVP. Piszę dlatego, że z artykułu wynika, że odkrywcą jest Gross - odkrywczynią zaś tego koszmaru jest Arnold, a Gross popularyzatorem. Być może niezręcznie napisałem, o co mi chodziło z tym "Liczeniem szkieletów" - nie chcę zdejmować winy, pewnie zresztą kiedy pisałeś odpowiedź nie miałeś już dostępu do artykułu, bo link wygasł. Nieważne. Istotniejsze, że w tej formie hasło trochę wprowadza w błąd, ale nie chcę sam go ruszać trochę z powodu niepewności angielszczyzny, trochę dlatego, że skoro ty się zająłeś, nie chcę wchodzić w szkodę. Pozdro. Basty

Szczerze mówiąc to nie orientuje się aż tak dobrze w tym temacie, lecz bazuje na wiadomosciach z prasy popularnej (i w miarę neutralnej) po prostu swoimi edycjami chciałem dodać widok na te zagadnienei z polskiej perspektywy i jednocześnie bronic hasła przed manipulacją. Co do "odkrycia" to mamy problem zbrodnia w jedewabnem zajmowały się także władze stalinowskie, póniej te informacje zaginęły, w końcu ameryke odkrywano pare razy a jej oficjalnym odkrywcą jest Kolumb. Jeżeli chcesz wprowadzic jakieś miodyfikacje do hasła, to zaproponuj tekst po polsku a ja go postaram sie przetłumaczyć. Pzdr Mieciu K 11:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb

Actually, the initial microlensing event was detected by OGLE, and the alert was passed on to PLANET/RoboNET. PLANET/RoboNET routinely "follows up" such notices from both OGLE and MOA. PLANET's follow up observations and analysis detected the planet. So - it's a group effort: OGLE discovered the original stellar microlensing event, and PLANET discovered the planetary microlensing event inside the stellar microlensing event. - Beowulf314159 14:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to change the edit - I was just explaining how the OGLE/PLANET discoveries fit together. Like I said, and like you said, it was a group effort. The way the article reads is fine - Beowulf314159 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski

E-mail sent, I'll probably upload the ogg together with the rewrite of the article that I'm working on right now. Thanks! Obli (Talk)^? 13:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ustawy

Wysłane.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nie dziala. Wyslij mi mejla albo podaj dokladny adres, nie chce mi sie bawic z spambocka paranajoa :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postęp z robieniem szablonów?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolita

Why did you revert my addition? If you have the Vintage International edition of the book, the reference I cited is on page 266... Please explain. Elb2000 12:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)elb2000[reply]

Yes, Humbert Humbert reads the letter from Dolly, but she refers to herself as Mrs. Schiller when she signs the letter (at the end). It is obvious to the reader that Dolly is Lolita, and Lolita is Mrs. Schiller. That's why I said that is where the reader learns about the identity of Mrs. Schiller. Elb2000 18:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)elb2000[reply]

Don't feel bad about this[1]. Polish editors face Polonopbhobic attacks on daily basis, its sadly part of our Wiki existance.

Kosovo

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Kafziel 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it can be very hard, but you really will feel much better if you don't even reply to others' attacks. The Kosovo article is protected from editing, so there is no point arguing on the talk page. Kafziel 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberate

There is discussion if we should use the word liberate or not in articles regarding Soviet actions in WWII, the results could form a policy on the issue [2] --Molobo 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power by country

It's been done; thanks! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dobra lektura: Help:Minor edit

Wiekszosc twoich edycji to nie minory.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-34/57

Hi Mieciu. Thanks for the additions to T-34. We're trying to bring the article up to featured article status, so I'm being really picky about references. Can you provide the full citation for Nowa Technika Wojskowa 11/04, regarding the T-34/57 production numbers? It would be good to cite the article's author and title, and perhaps the ISSN and page numbers. Thanks.

PS: I mistyped my edit summary, I've explained the restoration of "its successor" at talk:T-34#Successor. Regards. —Michael Z. 2006-07-12 14:54 Z

Al-Aqsa Intifada

If those kids are so innocent what were thay doing throwing rocks at israeli forces? And please tell me how during one second can you identify a difference between a black granede and a black stone being thrown at you. After hours and hours of such "incidents" the israeli soldiers can get pretty stressed, so it would be a good idea not to throw stones at them. Also while the kids are just "harmlessly" throwing rocks at Israeli positions ditracting them, militants might at the same time target those positions with deadly RPGs. Try taking the Israelis side for a change. Mieciu K 09:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't need to be the case if the Israeli occupying soldiers were not there to have stones thrown at to begin with. People tend to forget that there is (to quote the Israeli Supreme Court) a beligerant military occupation by Israel of the Palestinian people. Ramallite ^(talk) 11:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source for that? In Wikipedia you need a verifiable source to back up a claim. As for taking sides I do have a tendency to support the underdog, but I don't think there is a problem considering the massive pro-Israel bias expressed by many Wikipedia editors, but that's not surprising giving the demographics of Wikipedia editors. Most come from the US and are spoon fed propaganda on TV all the time. // Liftarn

Mohammad Al-Durra

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately you will have to come up with a verifiable source that can prove that he was not shot if you want to insist on whitewashing the incident (which if I am not mistaken is what you are attempting). This is Palestine, not America, and we do not automatically perform autopsies on shooting victims; there is no law that mandates that. All verifiable sources say that he was in fact shot, and if the body and funeral were not captured on international TV, that is not a reason for your original research inference that he was only 'alleged' to have been shot. Per Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia itself can not be used as a source for original concepts, so your suggestion that I 'read the article' itself is immaterial. But what we do not do on Wikipedia (or at least try not to do) is engage in denials of other peoples' national tragedies just to suit a personal and/or political agenda. For that, we have certain fundamentalist governments around the world. Please adhere to policy. Ramallite ^(talk) 11:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A followup regarding your second note: I don't think you should be assuming things about people who choose to remain anonymous on Wikipedia when you don't know their identity in real life, and I'm referring specifically to your suggestion that I should "get know the arguments of your oponents". I think your automatic assumptions in this regard are severely misplaced. Please revert your edit on the said article or provide a verifiable (reputable) source that him being shot is only an 'allegation', per WP policy. Ramallite ^(talk) 11:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poland as S-300 user

I took that information from [3]. Since they seemed to be correct on the ones that I checked, I included the whole list. After looking through other sources none of them seem to mention Poland so I'll remove it. - Dammit 20:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

The article was recently promoted to featured article status without any mention for the need for a citation, might I add that in the course of this the article was copyedited 6 times over by 4 great editors, including User:Tony1, who is known for not letting the smallest details pass by. Also, the articles for Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were promoted to featured article status without any mention of a need for citation of the sentence, hence the explanation "never has before". The Filmaker 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Belweder security thing

There might be some logic in it (though there are a number of acts of terror and other disruptive activity against the President I can think of it is easier to perform at the current location), but I guess putting in such statement without reference might suggest that that was the reason of the move, and we have no proof for that at the moment. Cheers, Bravada, talk - 16:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden tank

Hi Mieciu. I've uploaded the wooden tank photo to commons, so it is available in en Wikipedia at Image:Rudy w Rawiczu.jpg (it's showing as a broken image for me at the moment, but I think it's just a temporary thing because the database is slow).

Feel free to include it where you think it's appropriate. Since this is an homage to the television show, perhaps it makes sense to include this image in the program's article, and a more directly relevant image like a photo from the program or a TV screenshot of the main title in the T-34 article. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 18:11 Z

The movie poster looks great. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-10-12 23:57 Z

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians

Hi; I saw you were editing this article today, since I'm trying to clean it a bit do you want me to show you the diff afterwards for proof and POV check? (I'm French so I can be easily accused of bias). Thanks a lot :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with clening background noise

Noise removal done as . I however recommend that you redo the recording and apply the noise removal yourself, because this is a transcoded ogg (decode ogg and reencode it), which is inferior in quality to applying noise removal BEFORE encoding.

To do noise removal, first get a recording program that has a noise removal function. A good free audio editor is Audacity, which you can download here. Follow these procedures to record and noise-remove in the same run:

Record your audio, but after you finish speaking, let it run for a little while more while you remain silent, say 3-4 seconds.
Select that region of silence by dragging your mouse across it. It should have nothing in it but background noise.
1. To make sure there is only background noise, while the silence is selected, press play.
With silence selected, go to "Effect", then down to "Noise removal...". When the window pops up, press "Get noise profile".
Now, press Ctrl+A to select everything.
Finally, noise remove the least amount possible:
1. Go back to "Effect" -> "Noise removal", and adjust the slider to the first position after "None" (as little as possible).
2. Press "Preview". If this is too noisy for you, adjust the slider right one more position, and repeat until noise is removed satisfactorily.
3. Remember: Noise removal also causes removal of consonant pronounciations (try putting the slider all the way to the right. It will distort badly). You have to strike a careful balance between not too much noise and not too much audio detail removed. If in doubt, remove as little as possible.
4. When satisfied, press Ok.
Remove the 3-4 seconds of silence by selecting it and pressing backspace.
"File" -> "Export as ogg vorbis."

-- Znode ^(talk) 03:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashubian_alphabet

Czesc. Jakis czas temu dodales IPA do Kashubian_alphabet. Czy moglbys podac mi zrodlo tych informacji? [ɔ̃] oddaje raczej polskie ą a nie kaszubskie [un] (czyli kąsk po csb przeczytamy kunsk). Podobnie dzwiek [ʐ] to polskie ż a nie kaszubska spolgloska, ktorej dzwiek jest bardziej miekki, choc inny niz polskie ź. ó jest juz tym samym co polskie u/ó - raczej nie spotykana jest wymowa [o], przynajmniej ja sie z taka jeszcze nie spotkalem. Nie sadze zeby litera Ô na poludniu byla wymawiana jako [u], juz predzej jest to w tym rejonie dzwiek zblizony do polskiego a (albo cos pomiedzy e oraz o), choc tutaj duzej pewnosci nie mam - sam mowie wejherowsko - standardowa kaszubszczyzna ;) Nie chce sam poprawiac tego co napisales, bo nie znam sie na IPA, porownalem tylko to co jest na tej stronie z Polish_phonology. warszk 04:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zydokomunist

please expalin whay you seiing : "revert, solomon morel has nothing to do with this article" and do not do repeted reverts without discusion. For other people is obvoius and the Morel is on this article for long time.

You're a wikipedia nazi. You can't stop the Colbert nation.

Edits to Rat

Hi, and thanks for your recent additions to the scope of rats :) especially that photo you found of a wistar rat. While I agree that the Rat article requires at least a minor mention on the subject of keeping rats as pets because many species are kept, I'm disinclined to agree there's anything relevant to say about them as lab animals that isn't already covered in the article Brown rat, specifically because only R. norvegicus is used for this purpose, one species out of the whole Rattus genus. I encourage you to trim down the section and provide a link to the proper section Brown rat#Brown rats in science, as this article is meant to deal with the genus as whole. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern armoured fighting vehicles

Hummm and I guess Australia produces their M1A1 or their Leopards or the Netherlands... but what ever your article you have the double standards

out of control list

Thanks for you advice on List of Polish Jews but there's no way I can intiate WP:BOLD on that list. There's a monopoly on the list. WP:POINT additions are definitely present. LeszekB 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Picture of the Year/2006

I assert to have voted for picture 6. Mieciu K 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I will only block the user if he/she vandalizes again. Your t4 warning was the first warning received, so I am not counting that (t1 or t2 would be more appropriate). JoeSmack just gave a t4, so if the user vandalizes again, I will block indefinitely. Nishkid 64 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silphium

Regarding your edit to Silphium: Before you put a "citation needed" tag on something at least take the trouble to read carefully and look at the references. The text you tagged was covered by a citation later in the same paragraph, and in fact was from the first sentence in the cited article.--Srleffler 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If you're looking for an ancient source, the alternate names for silphium are both mentioned in the Pliny references, in the article.--Srleffler 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free press

You may answer me or not. I also live in democratic country and I fought hard for that. I believe that freedom of press is one of the most important democratic rights that exist in Serbia today. But, I wasn’t talking about freedom of press. I was talking about historical fact that even governments of democratic countries try to hide important information from the public and they often suceede in that. Thanks to the freedom of press, their tax payers are in position to learn about this information, sometimes 50 years after.

Sources? OK

Your answer was rude but I don’t mind. During past year I translated many articles about modern Polish history (Warsaw uprising, Battle for Warsaw 1939, Stanisław Sosabowski, Sobibór extermination camp, Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski etc.) to Serbian language and that helped me to learn something about Polish temperament. Stay well. --Marko M 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t dispute number of NATO losses. If you check the history of the article you will see that I didn’t make any disruptive changes in it. I am an administrator on sr.Wikipedia and I often warn users to be polite to each other (not just users but fellow administrators who sometimes lose their nerves). But what happens when I come to en.Wiki. Maybe because I’m from Serbia people have strange reactions to my comments how ever polite or argumented they are. I am slowly adapting to that and I don’t mind spending few extra words to explain my doings. Am I wrong if I aspect the same from the other users?

Anyway, to conclude. I always smile when I hear how many NATO planes our air-defense shot down. Realistic figure is probably 2 shot down and 20 to 30 damaged but able to return to their bases. This is not official report. I think that something like that doesn’t exist. Serbia has such a small air space and without radar coverage and air reconnaissance it was simply impossible to check every claim. After the war, effectiveness of our air-defense became more political then military matter. And that’s the way the story goes. But the situation is slowly changing thanks to the freedom of the press. There are many news reports, articles and TV specials that reveal true story of how many our pilots were simply sacrificed and how many of our soldiers died in fruitless attempt to show to everyone how we can take on half of the world on our own.

Maybe this will help to improve our future communication. If not, I don’t mind. My English is improving every day ;-) --Marko M 07:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The map of the Invasion of Poland (1939) page still looks wrong. Belarus and the Ukraine were part of the USSR, but it looks like they are seperate nations, or at the very least occupied. Needs correctingDapi89 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No im just reffering to the article Invasion of Poland (1939). The map of the USSR really should be identified as one country. It looks a little misleading as Belarus and the Ukraine appear to have borders. I realise they were republics of the Soviet Union, and may have had minimal autonomy, but the they were not individual countries. The map in this article seems to suggest that was the case.Dapi89 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Przezbrajanie samochodów ADGZ

Znalazłem fotografię przedstawiającą ADGZ z wieżą T-26. Nie był to też jedyny przykład takiego przezbrojenia. Niemcy przezbrajali także pojazdy kołowo-gąsienicowe SdKfz 254 w wierze T-26.

Tu masz wspomnianą fotkę: http://wilk.wpk.p.lodz.pl/~whatfor/aa3/adgz_n_4.jpg

A tu masz fotografie SdKfz 254 o którym mówiłem:

http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepanzer/su/t-26/sdkfz254/sdkfz254.htm

Copernicus

¿Why does Copernicus was not a Polish and Dürer and Beethoven were Germans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationalism Patrol (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski

Since you were interested in the FAC process last time, you may want to check it again. I believe the article has greatly improved over the past year.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]