User talk:Beaumont/Archive1

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Beaumont/Archive1! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lech Kaczyński

I have extracted this passage of yours: The twins were also criticized by Lech Wałęsa who qualified them as humans without the necessary format[1].Suddeutsche Zeitung's analysis claims, however, that President's indignation made visible a well-known mental asymetry phenomenon in Polish-German relations; the asymetry meaning there a relatively low level of knowledge about Poles and some historical German prejudices against the neighbor nation [2]. I found those clauses unsuitable. The first is just a deprecative opinion and there are always a deluge of those.

The second is not "Suddeutsche Zeitung's analysis". They published several articles to it and this article or let's say editorial is more about jokes. Their apt analysis came weeks before. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,polm1/ausland/artikel/985/79906/ What'S the "however" doing in there? Is the editorial trying to say that the taz article was showing a low level of knowledge about Poles and it was a historical German prejudice? Or that all of a sudden the taz article made visible those things as if by magic. The edtorial's headline made it loud and clear. The next Pole-joke is sure to come, that would make an editorial about Pole-jokes newsworthy. But it hadn't by then and before the editorial deadline would be missed some other connections to current events had to be made in its place. These would be so foolish, however, that it was better not to specify them. --Goethe 11:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. There are more deep reasons to add the entire passage than it looks at the very first glance. Since I'm partially reverting, I've moved the answer to the Lech Kaczyński article's discussion --Beaumont 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Recent changes

I am pretty sure anybody, not only admins, can view Recent Changes (visible in the first toolbox to the left). I am not an admin on pl wiki but I can easily access Specjalna:Recentchanges. And yes, the text you quoted from pl wiki is somewhat misleading - but the article from Rzecz was about en wiki anyway.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert translations

I am pretty sure that Miłosz did collaborate on translations of Herbert. I remember being fairly impressed with his translations, and noting how he even put in an explanatory reference to a Sŀowacki quote relevant to one of the poems, a note which is absent in the Polish editions of Herbert, presumably because the reference is clear enough to Polish poetry readers. In general I recall finding more to quibble with in the Carpenter versions. Stumps 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tracked down the details of the Miłosz translation and restored the entry in the Zbigniew Herbert article, adding more details. Stumps 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:LechKACZYNSKI1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LechKACZYNSKI1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source that time was wikipedia with none license selected... (yes, I know that it is an excellent idea to talk to a bot). Beaumont 21:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic transparence

Hi ... I don't 100 percent understand the footnote and quotation you've added to the Herbert article .. is this quoting something Herbert he himself said? And where does the 'Meeting' (spotkania?) fit in? Did Odra print speeches from a conference? Who is the translation by? I like the quote ... I simply want to understand who said it or wrote it and where it was printed. Pozdrawiam. Stumps 07:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be interested in seeing the original text if you can dig it up. I don't think we need to put "editor's translation" (just as we don't put "editors' text" on the articles) ... I asked because I was trying to clarify the sources, and thought there might have been a published translation. Stumps 11:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the original of the Herbert quote ... one doesn't get to see the word 'owa' very much :) ... I like the quote very much, and it is clear from reading Herbert's verse that it was a principle he followed in his work. I've made an attempt at translating the passage more directly, and updated the article accordingly ... change anything you like of course, there are some patches I'm not yet quite happy with. Stumps 16:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beaumont/Stumps, do you happen to have a full translation of this speech? Apparently you both master the polish language very well (igniting my envy..). Could you contact me if you can provide any further translation of this piece? Thanks. LocusBeatus 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Solidarity

Since you commented on the article's talk page in the past, I thought you may want to take a look at the FAC review. Your comments, as that of a person familiar with the article, would certainly be appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for the comments. You have decided not to voe?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was also suprised it was delisted so early. I asked Raul for reasons, he has not got back to me yet, which I find a further suprise (feel free to ask him too, he is busy and maybe more people enquiring will make him reply sooner). Thank you for your edit and comments; no need to be sorry - we all have priorities, and if the first FAC fails (which is not yet certain given we have more supports than opposes and Raul has yet to reply), we can always start a second one. Although I'd like to hear from some other users I asked for help/comments, some further reviews and edits should ensure an even higher quality level (I also asked one academic for an academic review, possibly I will ask another if that one doesn't get back to me soon).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On October 20, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mury (song), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Death

The vandalizers and anti-vandalizers know how to keep eachother busy, isn't it?--Daanschr 13:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 31 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article digital sundial, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Since you have joined our community in June, you have continued to contribute extensivly to content and discussions. For your great assistance I, Piotrus, award you The Exceptional Newcomer Award. Keep up the good job!_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| talk} 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BABEL

Could you add languages known to your userpage? It would be quite useful for such items. And as I can see your French is better than mine, could you see if there is anything in French article about Katyn that could be added to ours? They have some interested footnotes about Nuremberg, but it would take me too long to translate them - rozumiem piąte przez dziesiąte :>--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Babel language userboxes are very useful and used by almost all editors - they help others know what translations they can request and what non-English sources they can give you in discussions, among other things.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, but I don't think it will help you in the long run: as long as you seem to contribute to Poland-related articles, agree on some issues with me and Halibutt and worst of all, use the WP:PWNB, you will get classified as a 'Polish POV pusher' sooner or later - so if you actually are not Polish, it would be good for you to note that as soon as possible on your userpage :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panevėžys

Part of my objection in putting in these "foreign" toponyms, regards their being put in the leads of the articles. Relevant "historical" information is not objectionable to me being put into any article. The operative word being "relevant". For a while some were justifying such inclusions as trivial as quoting a novel written in the 19th century, mentioning the toponym as being the basis for putting it it the lead. Since you are opting for a historical perspective, can I count on your objectivity, and see if you will put the Lithuanian toponyms in the article leads of Lublin Union of Lublin, and Krakow (Capital of the Jagiellons)? Then we can discuss this some more, if you like. Dr. Dan 17:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

From your userpage: Most people assume the fights are going to be the left versus the right, but it always is the reasonable versus the jerks. - oh, that's so true... :) And thanks for your comments at my RfC. It's always nice to see that one is not alone or going crazy...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a very good quote to summarize the stuation - perhaps you could share them at the RfC. I have to admit I don't know the author (I am not googling to cheat :); if I'd had to guess I'd go with Samuel Clemens :) Once again, thank you for the kind words, and let me reply with one of my favourite quotes: The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing. Want to guess the author? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Nutkins

Hi Beaumont, regarding the vandalism you reverted at Terry Nutkins, good spot. Not sure if you fully scanned the wording of the vandalism, stating that a living person engages in "child rape" is unacceptable, clearly you revert a lot of vandalism (and long may ye be praised for that) so I appreciate you might not have the time to report every infraction you come across. I've indef blocked the IP until such time as they assert future good behaviour. Cheers, Deizio talk 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Lysy

Please move Lysy's comments that I responded to as well, so that the "entire" picture is presented in a more accurate context. Dr. Dan 14:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my "request". Please re-read it, and ask yourself why you perceived it as a demand. Dr. Dan 16:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

To push one or other side suggestions in the middle of argument, as you did in Kaunas article, is very rude and unprofessional. Wait until discussion is over, because behavior which you demonstrated, do not contribute to finding best solution. M.K. 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I did it once, your 3 reverts during the discussion (without a real answer in the talk page) was a "professional" way? (should I issue 3 warrnigs then?) Of course not. The discussion continues (I do not mind participating) and we can wait for the outcome. --Beaumont (@) 07:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, I have in no position to qualify my discussion was it professional or not. But next time when replying to my or anybody else post take a closer look to he history and events which followed. Next note - I did not violated 3RR rule, so keep 3 warrnigs to your self. Best wishes, M.K. 23:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read my message and try to understand. It refers not to your discussion but just to the number of your reverts. --Beaumont (@) 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it appears that my reply was based on misinterpretation, at least partially. M.K. 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for telling me

Thanks for telling me that the Poland article was vandalized and that an anonymous user was trying to fix it. I occasionally misinterpet nonsense as the real facts, and you are right, I should go slower when reverting vandalism. Thanks for telling me earlier. Also, an edit is not vandalism when the bad edit was put there unintentionally.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the edit in Poland. Happy editing.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ru-sib

I am sorry to tell you that ru-sib has degenerated into a hate-speech site that promotes ethnic hatred and physical violence against non-chosen nations. You can find details at the meta-vote and user talk:A4. Please do not restore links to it. Hopefully it will either get cleansed from hatred or closed soon. --Irpen 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is wrong with ru-sib exactly but I wanted to give you the same gist as Irpen - there is some problem with it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:21, 22 December

It's a vandalism, provided by some russian users, nothing more. They can't understand differennce between external link and interwiki. The same vandalism you could see here - Ingria. --A4 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XMAS gift

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your sure-to-grow collections of awards :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salad'o'meter™
	put barnstars here (no thumb or direction)
	n00b	involved	been around	veteran	seen it all	older than the Cabal itself

Opinions vs. links

These are not opinions. This is the basis of the dispute as provided by the nominator. You are wrong to assume that anybody may add there some diffs ad infinitum. Piotrus is not the nominator, so he cannot add anything to the list. If he adds something, I am free to remove it. Please consult RfAr rules before edit warring. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla has already been reverted by two ArbCom members, so I think we can safely assume they disagree with him. In either case, the new statement by W.marsh is quite interesting, and I expect we will see many similar.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci :) I thought you might want to respond to being called 'Piotrus yes-men' there :) I have to say I am really honored to have so many great people as my minions and yes-men out there :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the good thing about ArbCom: you just make a statement, and there is no discussion, that's it (well, usually) :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O, vous parlez francais, tambien. Swietnie! Je suis a yes-man to the Prokonsul tozhe! Bon chance, und Happy Christmas! Don't forget the minion ribbon. Dr. Dan 22:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFAR

Ghirla and Piotr have agreed to try mediation with me. JzG who initiated the arbitration request has asked the committee to give this a chance to work. If you'd like to provide input your comments are welocme at User talk:Durova/Mediation/Input. Do you object to (at least trying) this alternative to arbitration? Durova^Charge! 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'thru' as opposed to 'through'

Just wanted to let you know that you can change 'thru' to 'through' if you want, but the actual title of the page cited is "Routes 41 thru 60". Thanks! —Rob (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Jan Dzierzon

Just because the Communists call it something doesn't make it true. they also renamed Königsberg to Kaliningrad, but Kalinin never stepped foot in Königsberg. Especially true since we are talking about people who are known for their naming of anyone famous from the land they now own as being of their group.

--Jadger 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... I can't believe this, it was you who cast accusations of revisionim (not toward me yet)? LOL. Observe poor logic of your answer. I did not claim he was Polish, did I (in that case your message and Kaliningrad example could be relevant). Actually, I have more complex views. I indicated that Poles did consider him Polish (as you looked like ingnorant to that). And let me rephrase your post in my talk that basically says Poles (or commies) considered him Pole because he was famous. Terrible as argument.

As for Dzierzon, you may want to realize his self-identification. If this discussion really concerns him and you have some constructive input, let's move to the relevant talk page. Otherwise EOT. --Beaumont (@) 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Piotr Norblin

Thought you'd enjoy translating this to fr wiki, I am constantly puzzled it has not even a stub on him...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainians

Beamont:

please stop vandalizing the List of Ukrainians. The text at the top of this list clearly states its scope:

This is a partial list of famous or notable people of who are ethnically Ukrainian, speak/write in the Ukrainian language, were important to the development of Ukraine culturally or politically, or who were born on today's Ukrainian territory. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, a minority of persons of mixed or foreign heritage have their respective ancestries credited.

Thus, acknowledging the Lviv mathematicians as Ukrainian (or Ukrainian and Polish) is within the scope and the intention of the List of Ukrainians.

You also made numerous chauvinistic remarks (e.g. attacking the Ukrainian wikipedia). Please stop this kind of behavior, as it severely undermines the spirit of this project. Behave European.

It is highly misleading to claim that people born in today's Ukraine are "just Ukrainians" (and I've offered this rationale it in one edit summary there). This is as stupid as stating that, say, Max Born, Gerhart Hauptmann, Fritz Haber and many many others were "just Polish". The heading and the structure of the article should be corrected (and I'm going to discuss it in the relevant talk page). Unfortunately, it seems that your reasoning have been opposed by some other editors, including an admin who blocked you... Concerning the Polish mathematicians you were editing, the categories "poeple from Galicia" and/or "people from Lvov" would apply. Do not hesitate to add it if/when your block expires. --Beaumont (@) 08:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father of the Nation

Re: [3] - what about adding it to Mieszko?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Metropolis K.

I have to admit I don't know much about the region current history. Perhaps you can offer some comments at a related RFI involving User:LUCPOL? PS. And if you look down you will see one involving me and some of our 'friends'...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia - bo to jest nowa oficjalna nazwa proponowanego związku aktualnie powstaje. Dlatego też, zawiesiłem rozbudowę tego artykułu na pl.wikipedii, en.wikipedii i innych do póki nie powstanie. Domyślam się co chcesz zrobić - zmienić artykuł na en.wikipedii do poziomu pl.wikipedii, ale nie wiem czy to teraz (w styczniu 2007) ma jakiś sens. "Silesia" może powstać praktycznie lada chwila (choć to tylko zgadywanka), a jak powstanie to i na pl.wikipedii i na en.wikipedii przywrócony zostanie układ strony przez nowymi poprawkami. Nie zapominaj też, co było głównym powodem zmiany artykułu na pl.wikipedii. Tym powodem było tylko to, że ówczas GZM jeszcze nie powstał, a już tam był spis teatrów, komunikacji miejskiej itp. Ale inni wikipedyści są tego samego zdania co ja - nic nie stoi na przeszkodzie pisać o teatrach czy komunikacji, kiedy ten organizm administracyjny już powstanie. Więc rób co chcesz na en.wikipedii, mówię tylko że za późno się tym zacząłeś zajmować. Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL 12:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC) PS: Usuń twój wpis [4], ponieważ wpisałeś go w nieodpowiednim miejscu. Ja próbuję jak najszybciej!!! zakończyć konflikt z tym użytkownikiem, a ty tym tekstem rozpoczynasz dyskusję nad artykułem. Pomyliłeś miejsca, ten tekst wpisz w dyskusję artykułu. Jeśli nie usuniesz tego tekstu w ciągu (do) 4-6h, sam będę zmuszony to zrobić. LUCPOL 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nie znam języka angielskiego, proszę napisać po polsku na mojej dyskusji. LUCPOL 13:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ze słownikiem w ręku trochę zrozumiałem, ale czytać po angielsku nie potrafię a pisać bezbłędnie wogóle nie potrafię. Tu jest dyskusja dotycząca starej treści artykułu - [5]. Zobacz sobie komentarze głosów przeciw: głównie chodzi o to, że artykuł pisze jak o istniejącym GZM-ie (choć go jeszcze nie ma) oraz to, że GZM to planowany twór (pisali to przeciwnicy "czasu przyszłego" na Wikipedii). Jakie są prawdziwe zadania Silesii? Większość z nich jest wypisana w artykule na pl.wikipedii. Linki (źródła) również tam są. Na en.wikipedii źródła zostały usunięte przez wandala R9tgokunks (ten, który zrobił mi RFI). Inne źródła są w internecie i w prasie. Dalej twojego tekstu nie zrozumiałem, nie wiem czy o to chodzi ale odpowiem: różnice pomiędzy starym GZM a Silesią (po kilku miesiącach) są tylko dwie: nazwa oraz większa integracja (z naciskiem na utworzenie największej w Polsce metropolii). Odpowiedź na inne pytania: Tak, to ma być jednostka administracyjna (w sejmie RP trwają m.in. dyskusje nad wprowadzeniem tzw. "ustawy aglomeracyjnej", która m.in. upodmiotowi "Silesię"). Na w/w SDU oraz według w/w tekstu widać, że kompletnie nie rozumiesz co to GZM, traktujuesz to jak związki typu "miasta bliźniacze" czy coś, co jest oczywistym błędem. I co ciekawe - tylko u ciebie zauważyłem taką opinie na temat GZM. Wracając do tematu: na końcu napisałeś (co rozumuję następująco): "Mój komentować RFI jest zamierzony, by zatrzymać aktualną dyskusję i skupić się na prawdziwym zagadnieniu. Czuć się swobodnie , by skomentować..." - a mianowicie: przypomnę jeszcze raz, że nie potrafię języka angielskiego. Czuć się swobodnie?!? Dla mnie te RFI to czysty koszmar, przez ostatnie dwa dni łykam tabletki uspokojające (poważnie), bo mnie doprowadza do szału to, że R9tgokunks zrobił dla mnie RFI, ładuje tam linki które nie są wandalizmem (ani jeden), pisząc jak o wandalizmie (sam przeczytaj te całe RFI to się przekonasz). Zaśmieca RFI kilkuset linkami z moimi loginami na innych wikipediach itp. Nie mam możliwości obrony, napisałem dwa teksty, które Piotrus (po jakimś czasie) przetłumaczył na język angielski. Nikt nie chce mi pomóc (prosiłem Piotrusa ale on nie ma czasu). Kogo mam poprosić (po polsku), aby ktoś opomniał R9tgokunks aby nie manipulował na RFI, aby wykreślił lub wyciął nieaktualne lub wyjaśnione sprawy. Kogo? Ja chcę te RFI zakończyć jak najszybciej, choćby dziś. Jestem w stanie zrobić wszystko aby usunięto te RFI natychmiast. Ja już poprostu nie wyrabiam nerwowo... a ty tu piszesz takie rzeczy?!? I dlatego proszę Cię, usuń swój komentarz z tej strony. Niech dyskusja na temat "Silesii" odbędzie się gdzie indziej np. na dyskusji tego artykułu lub na innej stronie nie związanej z moją osobą. Proszę, uszanuj moją wolę. PS. To jest en.wikipedia, ale na mojej dyskusji pisz tylko po polsku lub śląsku, bo ja angielskiego nie potrafię (większość tekstów to zgaduję lub nie wiem o co w nich chodzi lub w części zacharowuję się na śmierć przy słowniku języka angielskiego). LUCPOL 13:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biorąc pod uwagę, że umiesz język polski oraz angielski więc proszę o mediację w sporze "LUCPOL - R9tgokunks". Po usunięciu twojego tekstu [6], bardzo Cię proszę, abyś pomógł poprowadzić te RFI do szybkiego końca. O to samo poproszę Piotrusa. Chodzi głównie o jak najszybsze wyjaśnienie większości spraw tego RFI, a sprawę "Silesii" wyjasnić gdzie indziej. Użytkownik R9tgokunks (czy chcieć tego, czy nie chcieć jest trollem i wandalem - zawsze mogę to udowodnić podając linki), więc nie wiem czy on będzie chciał szybko rozwiązać konflikt, dlatego was proszę o mediację. Czy mógłbym liczyć na twoją pomoc w jak najszybszym rozwiązaniu sprawy RFI i rozpoczęcię dyskusji na temat "Silesii" w miejscu do tego przeznaczonym? LUCPOL 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zostawmy narazie temat "Silesii". Potrafisz porozumiewać się językiem polskim i angielskim, proszę zatem o mediację na RFI. Ten użytkownik nie bierze moich (napisanych przeze mnie) argumentów pod uwagę. Potrzebuje pomocy - osoby, która będzie tak kierowała tym RFI a by sprawę rozwiązać, a nie przeciągać. Mam tylko jedno pytanie: czy mógłbym liczyć na twoją pomoc w jak najszybszym rozwiązaniu spraw RFI i rozpoczęcie dyskusji na temat "Silesii" w miejscu do tego przeznaczonym? LUCPOL 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napisałeś do mnie: "Twoj ruch". Tak właściwie to teraz jest ruch R9tgokunksa. On powinien przyjść, przeczytać, zaakceptować fakty i przejść do następnego tematu. Czy to zrobi? Nie wiem. Wiem natomiast, że R9tgokunks to R9tgokunks. A R9tgokunks to wandal - kilkanaście różnych wojen edycyjnych w tylko ostatnich kilku tygodniach, manipulacje, trollingi, ataki tzn. przy każdym revercie pisanie (masowo) w opisie zmian o wandalach/wandalizmach, nie akceptowanie żadnych innych opinii na zasadzie "wszyscy się mylą, ja mam rację", kasowanie postów napisanych przez inne osoby itd. itd. - oczywiście wszystko mogę udowodnić, mam już tego wszystkiego spis w "notatniku" na dysku. Nie chcę zarzucać jego złej woli, ale co jeśli będzie się droczył? I tu właśnie potrzebuję pomocy: jeśli będzie się droczył, będzie unikał szybkiego dojścia do porozumienia to ktoś trzeci (mediator) powinien mu zwrócić uwagę, aby jednak nie szukał dziury w całym i próbował szukać porozumienia. I mam nadzieję, że Ty i Piotrus pomożecie jednak w prawidłowym poprowadzeniu tego RFI. Teraz poczekajmy na ruch R9tgokunksa. LUCPOL 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nie zamierzam "atakować" R9, dlatego też stworzyłem (tylko na wszelki wypadek) linkownię z jego wandalizmami po za wikipedią (w notatniku) i nie bardzo chcę to na wikipedii publikować. Nie chcę się z nikim kłócić, chcę mieć tylko święty spokój. Ale martwią mnie dwie rzeczy:

ciągle jeszcze jest tamte RFI atakujące "moją osobę"
co zrobić, jak dojdzie do jakieś następnej wojny edycyjnej między mną a R9?

Napisałeś: "Moglbys zapomniec o sprawie nawet w tej chwili" - zapomnę o tej sprawie, kiedy atak na "moją osobę" zostanie usunięty z RFI. Przyznam, że bardzo chciałbym o tym zapomnieć już teraz... ale zawsze coś może powstać nowego od R9 i co później? I tutaj już jest kwestia osób trzecich - to osoby trzecie powinny tak pokierować RFI, aby R9 dał już sobie spokój i usunął RFI lub to osoby trzecie usuną RFI, jako rozwiązana/wyjaśniona już sprawa. I tu jest cały morał moich w/w tekstów - prosiłem o jakąkolwiek pomoc w zakończeniu RFI jako wyjaśnienie spraw, natomiast problem "GZM/Silesii" przedyskutować w dyskusji artykułu, tymbardziej że ja już od kilku dni nie edytuje tego artykułu tylko czekam własnie na tę dyskusję. LUCPOL 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for you enters into Jan Dzierzon article--131.104.218.46 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I guess you wanted to smile to me, I must say that there is nothing to thank for 'cause it was just few links to sources that I consider reliable. As simple as this.(EOT) --Beaumont (@) 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is other reason I am appreciated. I was systematically provoked and persecuted by a few individuals. Seems to me I was too emotional or not smart enough with those trolls. You support for the historical facts in Jan Dzierzon article give me release. It stopped the aggressive folks. As a relatively new user and busy with common live projects I can not study the Wikipedia roles quickly and very effectively. However if I can do something for you I offer my help. My e-mail is andrewserafin@hotmail.com.--131.104.218.46 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who opposes your views is a "troll" and I do not think that wikipedians are supposed to apply this label in content disputes. Please remember that once you assined bad faith to me as well. I'm not offended; just I'm not sure whether I appreciate your quick qualifications (positive, negative, doesn't really matter). If I may give you a humble suggestion... less emotions, more rationale, less emotions once again, and if you still want to edit wikipedia, have a look at some basic wiki-policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:CIV, this will faciliate the job and will result in less stress. I do not use mail (nor IRC, by the way) to contact wikipedians. I find the trasparence offered by the talk pages very important. --Beaumont (@) 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to randomly mention that User:131.104.218.46 was blocked less than an hour after posting that comment. -- Hrödberäht 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jogaila

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
You're not listed, but you can add yourself if you like. Beats voting, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC) You forgot to sign your support vote on the survey. I signed it for you FIO, but it's not gonna count.Space Cadet 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GZM

Odnośnie GZM, kiedy już powstanie: najprawdopodobniej artykuł ten (na wszystkich wikipediach) będzie wzorowany na artykule Unii Europejskiej. Czyli będą osobne sekcje takie jak osobne artykuły UE np. History of the European Union (Historia), Geography of the European Union (Geografia), European Union member states (podział), Politics of the European Union (Polityka), Economy of the European Union (Gospodarka), Education in the European Union (Edukacja) itd, itd. Poprostu UE podobnie jak GZM to jawne granice, ludność, dany obszar posiadający swoje dobra itd. Myślę, że większość osób jest podobnego zdania. Owszem, przyznam jedno - artykuł GZM musi mieć odpowiednie sekcje: cele, polityka, powstanie GZM, zarządzanie itp, ale również sekcje dotyczące co jest na obszarze tego administracyjnego obszaru miejskiego, uczelnie, zabytki, gospodarka, sport, ekologia i inne. Piszę to, gdyż miałeś kiedyś odmienne zdanie na ten temat. Mam nadzieję, że ci dobrze wszystko wyjaśniłem. LUCPOL 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napisałem to, gdyż doszły mnie słuchy że wszystkie uchwały miast już dobiegły końca. Teraz jest proces rejestracji w MSWiA. W Sejmie RP jednocześnie jest opracowywana ustawa aglomeracyjna. Moja propozycja to nie usuwać żadnych informacji z artykułu GZM na en.wikipedii (co najwyżej dodanie dodatkowych informacji o celach, polityce, zarządzaniu, zadaniach). Bo nie wiem, czy warto co kolwiek usuwać jeśli powstawanie GZM już dobiega końca. Ale można dodać te istotne informacje o celach, polityce, zarządzaniu, zadaniach itp. LUCPOL 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

List of Polish Jews

Hi Beaumont. Can you please enfore some type of major clean up on that list? A few months ago a huge amount of Americans, Israelis, and Canadians of distant or questionable Polish heritage were added to the list, including Joe Lieberman, Russ Feingold, Geddy Lee, and more recently Adrien Brody, Scarlett Johansson, Richard Feynman and many others. Attempts were made to try to find sources that say there people were "Polish Jews" as is laid out right in the title of the list, but a group of users with WP:OWN issues guarded the list from all attempts to try to standardize it to the likes of all other lists like it. Now, the list is chock-full of ridiculous entries based solely on the fact that many of these people may have had a Polish-Jewish parent or grandparent. It needs some serious help and I clearly can't do it alone. 141.213.210.76 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium

Snowball effect does play a large role in my views (think also about why Nupedia failed. I just can't see any fork overtaking Wikipedia; bottom line is that there is only room for definite collection of information on the net (with the exception that if Wiki does something not notable and throws it away (fictional stuff like Memory Alpha or non-encyclopedic, others can scavenge it ;p). Citizendium has a nice idea but it is nothing more then a WikiProject with overblown ego (i.e. started on another website instead of Wikipedia namespace): since it's licences under GFDL too, there is nothing stopping Wikipedia from taking anything CZ develops - so while I can see a CZ community working on high quality articles, people will look for content on larger Wikipedia, and CZ will be nothing more then a quality-articles-creation wikiproject (like several others we have). That's, at least, my crystal ball take on the matter :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impolite discussion can happen even on academic listervs, so I have my doubhts about whether this will work. And if they plan to adopt a GFDL-incompatibile license, then I am willing to bet a wikibuck or whatever that they will go under in less than two years and be just a footnote in the history of online encyclopedias. I just don't see what can they do to stop wiki steamroller, which is bent on being THE place to collect all important information. As one of my favourite saying goes: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for pebbles to vote. PS. I am always happy to discuss such issues, so feel free to msg me with that subject as often as you wish.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just listening in, but I see no reason why anyone in WP should be hostile to CZ or consider it undesirable competition. From what I understand, their main problem is endless discussions of the rules rathe than writing--which is not unknown here; the difference seems to be that the people there tend to discuss in much longer essays. Remember that WP is free to use their content, just as they are free to use the content here. Ideally, it should result in improvements in both places. DGG 20:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci

Some things that French Wikipedians would probably be intereste in may be French Military Mission to Poland, Blue Army and Franco-Polish Military Alliance - at least those three come to my mind immediatly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is crazy

As you may have noticed, I have checked out the discussion on the List of Ukrainians article, adding a comment Well, what this anon guy is doing, man this is crazy And yet he is calling us Poles chauvinists Tymek 04:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainians and Mibelz

Mibelz has been doing the same thing on List of Polish Jews as well as List of Ukrainians - adding names of people from every which nationality and claiming they are Polish Jews. Tried removing Scarlett Johansson and Richard Feynman from the list but the same excuse was given as the one on List of Ukrainians. Also, I'm puzzled by his creation of List of Galician Jews; an odd subdivision of territory/ethnicity, mixing Ukrainians and Poles into one list. LeszekB 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

The FA promotions/failures are normally handled by a bot so are almost instantaneous from the moment that Raul654 does the promotions, but Gimmetrow, who runs it is on a wikibreak, which is why it didn't get done until I went round doing it by hand yesterday. It's impossible to tell if you go directly to the FAC nomination page, but you can tell by looking at Wikipedia:Goings-on (which lists the promotions and date). If the article listing is missing from WP:FAC and isn't listed at Goings on, then that probably means the FAC has failed, but you can check for certain by going to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations and checking the log for the month. Anything in there has failed. Yomangani ^talk 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-French relations

I know you rarely visit anymore :( but I hope you would like to do some editing of this new article I created; maybe translate a stub into fr and pl wikis?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Discussions des Alliés sur la question polonaise - we don't have anything on that topic, although we have various tidbits here and there, with Western betrayal being perhaps the closest. I see the article has a few inline (Harvard) citations, perhaps you could add a little on that to the WB article, or translate it into the en wiki entirely (my French is too poor to make translation easy :( ).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 10:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratulacje za wersje fr! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorski's Army

When I found some great sources for that subject, I just had to write another DYK :) Enjoy. PS. Based on the numbers, it seems that half of this army was recruited from French Polonia, but I can't find a statement about that for a citation... I found also something about 'elusively Polish resistance units in France', founded from the soldiers after battle in France, but again, can't find anything specific. Maybe in French? Mine is too poor for searching :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cit report on Wiki

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-30/Citizendium analysis.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime_Weygand

Compare Maxime_Weygand#Weygand_in_Poland and fr:Maxime_Weygand#Pologne. If my French is correct, the fr wiki makes some uncited claims that Waygand might have actually done something? Or are they talking about the junior officers? The latter would be more correct; indeed, de Gaulle distinguished himself, for example.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might have been me, long time ago - but is all based on Davies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 10:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]