User talk:Piotrus

: 632

: 82

: 6

: 22

You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Piotrus/Archive 23. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Current RfAdminship

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

POST

See my post at Talk:Stanisław Krysicki

Huns over the walls!

FYI

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#Gimme_a_break_here.21

Can't believe this! I'm too busy right now for WP, so can you monitor/influence this... hopefully he/she was to lazy to fix the created redlinks... leaving things more or less intact, but I find it hard to think of a 1632 article which didn't/doesn't/shouldn't reference and link to this page! Sheesh! // FrankB 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping update... I think this may be the last straw, I don't have time to read current gazettes much less put up with the mickey mouse bullcrap that's come out of notability deletions. And I humbly disagree, taking such common (some might say, "sidebar") material out of a article makes more sense when it's something as complex as this series and is common to the many. The series article ought to be in the main thrust focused on the overall neohistoric synopsis, not burdened with something that is topical on it's own and acts to explain things in the many. Live long and prosper. // FrankB 03:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Polish culture during World War II

Congratulations and keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemlock Martinis (talk • contribs) 15:27, April 2, 2008

A break?

Hey, it sounds to me like you need a break... I sincerely suggest you take a short break (did you notice it's spring outside?) There is more to life than wiki. Renata (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are not taking a break, what do you think about this map? Renata (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment but it deals with various demarcation lines in between the phases. I put in only the final one (1923) and the border recognized to LT by RU in 1920 treaty. Renata (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

As a prominent Slavic editor, I'd like to here your opinion here. Thank you. The Dominator (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-class review of Armia Krajowa

In March you've commented on the Armia Krajowa article, which have eventually passed the A-class review. Since then I have been steadily expanding the article (my goal is to FA it one day), but in recent days a content dispute is threatening to destabilize this article; your comments would be much appreciated here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I don't understand the dispute and talk page is difficult to parse because the participants there seem to be already very knowledgeable in what the dispute is. Please explain to me what the dispute is about assume (correctly) that I have no background at all in what it involves. Cla68 (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue involves the lead. Some users want to add this information to the lead. As I explained in my large post at the bottom of this thread, such claims seem undue and fringe. For example, a similar argument would be to add claims about Free French committing war crimes (per this) to the lead of Free French article (which I'd oppose, of course), or claim about US Army committing atrocities to the lead of US Army (per Canicattì massacre, for example) and so on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd take it to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and post a link and notification about the thread there on the talk page of the article, and perhaps on the talk pages of the editors involved. The editors at that noticeboard could provide some good advice on how to approach the dispute. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOSDAB

Hi, Piotrus! Do you have any further plans regarding what to do with this thread? I don't see it going anywhere, and would hate to see it closed in this hung state. Maybe it would make sense to undo the whole revision and have its supporters to formally submit it for community's consideration instead of allowing them to quitely pass it behind everybody's backs. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind doing it? I regret to admit that the dab project folks can't stand my guts any more, so you'll have better chances of not being reverted on the spot for being, well, you :) I will, of course, back you up if need be. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Thanks for info, but I can't make myself to create inline refs, if all article is based on one source. You can put them in places you like ;-) Pibwl ←« 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Jews

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I will post a rationale, but essentially it's this: every other equivalent article is called "History of the Jews in..." (see the template at the bottom). Biruitorul (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mix up

Piotrus, sorry about that, but there's a technical mix up with your edit here. Please self-revert and than put that same paragraph you copied from Talk page lower down inside the article, in section "Visual arts". The new and the old paragraph you replaced begin with exacly the same first sentence "While in Canada, Tylman pursued a career in commercial arts as an airbrush illustrator." However, the phrase "While in Canada" is used in the article twice, so it's easy to make that mistake. Sorry about having to ask you to do it again. I owe you big time. Thanks a million. Again, zero-in on the second "While in Canada...", not the first. Cheers. --Poeticbent talk 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks.

Thank you. --Poeticbent talk 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Skutela

I really appreciate his contributions into a demoscene, but nn and no V&RS. Prod? Visor (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kieslowski

Hi Piotrus,

Could you be so kind to merge the page Adam Kieslowski into Eva & Adam? I don't really know how that works, sorry.

Thanks in advance

Adam-Kieslowski (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

Thanks for your reply. I've tried my best to merge it in. I'm not feeling discouraged at all because of your comments, you put them down very correctly, I don't have any problems about that.

I do have a problem about how some people around here act towards others trying to do a good thing. Apparently this is accepted, which does discourage me. Wikipedia should be all about sharing and contributing, not flaming others about a few mistakes. Nice way to discourage newbies around here. It's time people act against people at that discussion page.

Adam-Kieslowski (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahamba

Do you think the article meets WP:N. I am confused. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I take it to AfD only for being sure if it is notable or not? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A-class review of Armia Krajowa

I was refering to the version of the article at the time I posted my comment. One sentance acknowledging that there are different views on AK in the intro seems to represent the article's content so is in line with WP:LEAD. Please note that I have very little knowledge of this particular topic, and can't comment on the article's accuracy. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related topic, I think that non-positive aspects of topics should be included in introductions when this is relevant and reflects the article's content. For instance the lead in Timor Leste Defence Force (which I recently played the lead role in bringing to FA class) is pretty damming of the military's effectiveness. If I were writing an article on the Red Army or US Army I'd include their problems as well (eg, the Soviets insensitivity to casualties and the US Army's poor record in counter-insurgency). --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the version at the time I made my post - which from the diffs you posted was the one you prefer. Miyokan seems to have been mistaken about the version at the time I made my post. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congress Poland

Hi,

I was looking for someone to proof-read my re-write of Congress Poland, and you seem an ideal candidate! As I said on the talk page, it was mostly to clean up language and referencing, I did my best to base it on what was on the page but my grasp of Polish history is nil. Would you mind checking my work? WLU (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the suggestion. WLU (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just checking to see if the Neutrality tag refers to the issues in the lead that have recently been discussed on WP:FTN. If so, then I'll remove it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed it because I think the current version of the lead is now sufficiently neutral. NB: I won't have time to be involved in a long debate on the talk page about any other issues because that would entail too much research at the moment. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get back to this tomorrow when I'm fresher. --Folantin (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Vatican, Russia, Lithuania and Poland (Pius IX - Pius XII

Except for Lithuania after 1939, I pretty much finished the above article (the first round). The Russian additions were necessary because of the time before 1918. But they enlarged the article considerably. Maybe it is too long now. I am thinking of creating "mains" and adding short summaries of them. Next week.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lamhirh

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Lamhirh, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Lamhirh. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at that

Maybe I should go on with it, and actually confirm, perhaps then some people will be under my command ;] [1] --Molobo (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Lamhirh

I have nominated Lamhirh, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamhirh. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. B. Wolterding (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:1660 Polish Russian War.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:1660 Polish Russian War.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Movie of joint Soviet Nazi victory parade available.

I just found out that there is an actual movie of the joined Soviet-Nazi victory parade of 1939. I am downloading it but knowing net it could be deleted. I think you might be interested. [2] --Molobo (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video is available from YouTube under the title "1939 German-Soviet troop parade in Brest Litovsk" In YouTube the video clip can be blown up to full-screen size. Runtime:02:14. Original commentary in German would require translation. There's also another video clip in YouTube called Nazis and Soviets in occupied Poland in 1939 with still photographs from the invasion. Runtime 02:42. It has a fairly good resolution which would allow for a series of screen-shots to be uploaded to Commons. There are more video clips, like the German and Soviet forces partition Poland (runtime 00:20), but in most cases the footage is already known from reprints. --Poeticbent talk 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Commons supports video uploads, but a free license for the content would have to be confirmed first.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Melchior Wańkowicz

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melchior Wańkowicz, 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.

--Bencherlite ^Talk 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyskusja

Dobry wieczór Piotrus, mame dyskusjy o WikiProjektoch [3]. Twoja stanowisko jest powitano. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]