User talk:Radomil

Archive 1

---

Tylko jedno słówko :) Warto też kopiować takie prośby na WP:PWNB, im wiecej sie zainteresuje tym lepiej :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Greater Poland Uprising (1806), 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.

--Wizardman 04:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is usual to use a comma instead of "in" for page titles. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC) OK I will fix the links. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Air Force of the Polish Army, 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.

--Smee 03:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about the 103rd Squadron has long since been rewritten by Poeticbent.

I knew that German (at least) uses British-style dates, and I read somewhere (but I can't find it now) that Wikipedia prefers British English for articles about Europe, presumably because Europeans are more familiar with British English than American English. The British-style dates were changed to U.S.-style dates by Poeticbent, not me, and it doesn't matter if people use date preferences.

Another thing I read somewhere that I can't find now, is that there are two styles of user page conversation on Wikipedia. The reason to reply on one's own page is to allow the complete conversation to be read by others without switching back and forth. If you look at any long user talk page, you can normally find some replies from the page's owner on his own user talk page. Both conversation styles can be accommodated by temporarily putting a user talk page on your Wikipedia:Watchlist when you leave a message. Art LaPella 17:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people (I think a minority) prefer answers on their own user talk page, but don't say it's because you get a notification - unless you understand that putting the other person's user page on your watch list will also give you a less immediate notification. Art LaPella 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also an administrator, although I do more editing than discussion compared to other administrators. I don't keep track of old items on my watchlist - I unwatch them when someone edits them if the issue is no longer current, and if you look at random user talk pages you'll see how popular that is. Whatever. Art LaPella 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Polish chessboard? It isn't on English Wikipedia, and I don't think it's even on Google. The Google hits confuse chessboards from Poland with polishing a chessboard. The chessboards that do come from Poland look like American chessboards, 8x8 not 2x2 as in the picture.

The Transformation section seems disproportional to the rest of the article. I would think the most important facts about a military organization would be a description of its battles and a description of its capability if ordered into another war, not such a long list of demobilized organizations. Art LaPella 21:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Summary style says: "In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page" with a link to the subtopic's own page. Art LaPella 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either, but at least I wouldn't make the section any longer without splitting it off into another article. Art LaPella 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czemu nie przetłumaczysz artykułu na polski?

Strona o Poznaniu jest dosyć uboga w zdjęcia. Może dobrze byłoby rozpatrzyć tę kwestię...??? Kajzderski

thanks for the information you provided on my talkpage. I left the regional names given to the units out, as I did not know their English name most of the time and there isn't much space in the graphic to include these names. However where if you are willing to help- You can find the graphic here and I have the following questions:

• First I have some questions about units that I already was able to include in the graphic:
  • Is "Batalionu Piechoty Zmotoryzowanej" correctly translated as “Motorized Battalion”?  Done
  • What are: "kompania łączności", "kompania ochrony i regulacji ruchu", "kompania wsparcia".
  • I translated “Batalion Powietrznodesantowy” as Paratrooper Battalion. Correct?  Done
  • 10th Logistics Brigade:  Done
    • What does “składowania” mean?  Done
    • What does “ewakuacji sprzętu” mean?  Done
  • 23 Śląska Brygada Artylerii under the link "Struktura BA" you will find the Brigades units: What does “dra” mean? I made a Rocket Artillery Group of it…  Done
  • I translated “Pułk Samochodowy” as Transport Regiment.  Done
  • I translated “Pułk Ochrony” as Protection Battalion.  Done
  • Does “batalionów łączności” mean “Signal Battalion”?  Done
• Secondly: there is a long list of regiments and battalions listed in the Polish Wikipedia article about the Polish Land Forces. I tried to translate these units, but I do not know where they belong to. Which command is responsible for these units and what is the English translation for them?
  • Samodzielne pułki
    • 14 Suwalski Pułk Artylerii Przeciwpancernej (Suwałki) = 14th Anti-Tank Rgt.
    • 4 Pułk Przeciwlotniczy (Czerwieńsk) = 4th Air Defence Rgt.
    • 8 Koszaliński Pułk Przeciwlotniczy (Koszalin) = 8th Air Defence Rgt
    • 1 Dębliński Pułk Drogowo-Mostowy (Dęblin) - jednostka Pomorskiego OW = ???
    • 2 Inowrocławski Pułk Komunikacyjny (Inowrocław) = 2nd Signals or PsyOps Rgt.?
    • 3 Włocławski Pułk Drogowo-Mostowy (Włocławek) - jednostka Śląskiego OW = ???
    • 5 Pułk Inżynieryjny (Szczecin) = ???
    • 9 Pułk Dowodzenia(Białobrzegi) = 9th Command Btn.
    • 49 Pułk Śmigłowców Bojowych (Pruszcz Gdański) = ???
    • 56 Kujawski Pułk Śmigłowców Bojowych (Inowrocław) = ???
    • 1 Pułk Specjalny Komandosów (Lubliniec) = 1st Special Forces Rgt.
    • 2 Hrubieszowski Pułk Rozpoznawczy (Hrubieszów) = 2nd Reconnaissance Rgt. – is this a Special Forces unit?
    • 9 Warmiński Pułk Rozpoznawczy (Lidzbark Warmiński) = 9th Reconnaissance Rgt. – is this a Special Forces unit?
    • 4 Pułk Chemiczny (Brodnica) = NBC Rgt.
  • Samodzielne bataliony i kompanie
    • 100 Batalion Łączności (Szczecin) – jednostka Międzynarodowego Korpusu Północ-Wschód = 100th Signals Btn.
    • 8 Batalion Walki Radioelektronicznej (Grudziądz) = 8th Signals Btn.
    • 11 Batalion Walki Radioelektronicznej (Legnica) = 11th Signals Btn.
    • 5 Batalion Chemiczny (Tarnowskie Góry) = 5th NBC Btn.
    • 1 Batalion Zabezpieczenia Dowództwa Wojsk Lądowych (Warszawa) = ???
    • 1 Kujawsko-Pomorski Batalion Zabezpieczenia Okręgu Wojskowego (Bydgoszcz) = ???
    • 2 Batalion Dowodzenia Okręgu Wojskowego (Wrocław) = 2nd Command Btn. ??
    • 28 Batalion Dowozu Amunicji = 28 Ammunition Btn.
    • 3 bataliony remontowe (52, 55, 112) = Maintenance Btn.
    • 8 batalionów zaopatrzenia (75, 82, 86, 91, 95, 97, 107, 122) = Supply Btn.
    • 6 batalionów ratownictwa inżynieryjnego (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) = ???
    • ponadto m. in. 2 kompanie kontroli ruchu 2 kompanie transportu ciężkiego itp. = ???
• Third: These are the Brigades of which I could not find any information and therefore they are only in the graphic with the Brigade icon, but all their units are missing- if you or someone you know has information about these brigades, please let me know it.
  • 1 Warszawskiej Brygady Pancernej
  • 3 Brygada Zmechanizowana Legionów
  • 10 Brygada Kawalerii Pancernej
  • 34 Brygada Kawalerii Pancernej
  • 2 Brygada Zmechanizowana Legionów
  • 12 Brygada Zmechanizowana
  • 36 Brygada Zmechanizowana
  • 9 Brygada Kawalerii Pancernej
  • 16 Pomorsko-Warmińska Brygada Zmechanizowana
  • 20 Bartoszycka Brygada Zmechanizowana
  • 1 Mazurska Brygada Artylerii
  • 1 Brzeska Brygada Saperów
  • "2 Mazowiecka Brygada Saperów" doesn’t even have a homepage…
  • 10 Opolska Brygada Logistyczna
  • 15 Sieradzka Brygada Wsparcia Dowodzenia

Can you help? thanks, --noclador 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radomil, thanks for your answers- I already updated the graphic :-) --noclador 09:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with all the translations. I'll wait 2-3 days with updating the graphic, in the hope that you might be able to find out, if these units are all directly under the Land Forces Command or other commands. The units that are under command of the Silesian and Pommeranian Military District I will add tonight. --noclador 09:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link to the units of the Silesian Military district- could you have alook and try to find out, what the units of the 10 Logistic Brigade are? http://www.sow.mil.pl/index.php?id=jednostki#naglowek --noclador 06:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished to update the graphic. As for the 10th LogisticsBrigade, I moved some of the units that are supposedly part of the Silesian Military district into the 10th Logistics Brigade- the reason: the 1stLogistic Brigade has the same kind and number of units as the Silesian Military district and I think it is more logical that these units have in the meantime be moved under command of the 10 Log. Brig... I also included all the Regiments and Battalions that are under direct command of the Land Forces. The new graphic is now up: commons:Image:Poland Land Forces.png --noclador 08:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia as you did to Polish Air Force article in this edit. Your edit do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. --Eurocopter tigre 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a wonderful picture of the sculpture, thank you for uploading it! Do you by any chance have a closer view of the face of the sculpture? Thank you, Elonka Dunin.  :) --Elonka 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's a great addition to Wikipedia, and I have several family members in the U.S. who will be interested in seeing it. Also, considering the chaos of my current RfA, it's actually a useful thing for me to look at. If I'm pondering the answer to a question, I can look at the picture, and think, "How would my ancestors have handled this?"  :) So again, thanks. --Elonka 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not actually know when I created this article. I have been intending to do some research around it but have not yet found time to do so. I created this article when I noticed the term 'Polish Marines' was used in the Polish Navy article. --Hydraton31 09:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your help in creating this article, hopefully I will have time to do something about it. --Hydraton31 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marcin Dunin, 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.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 04:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:KKS_Lech_Poznań.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. BigrTex 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ostatnio mniej sledze nowe artykuly; polecam reklamowac takie jak Tramways in Poznań na Template talk:Did you know.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We wprowadzeniu do List of Polish flags zaznaczyłem, że lista obejmuje tylko flagi zdefiniowane przez polskie prawo na poziomie państwowym, czyli ustawy bądź rozporządzenia ("flags defined by Polish national law, either through an act of parliament or a ministerial ordinance"). A zatem nie obejmuje ona ani flag ustalonych przez samorządy, ani przez stowarzyszenia. Ponieważ bandery jachtowe są obecnie zdefiniowane tylko przez statuty stowarzyszeń żeglarskich, to uważam, że nie ma na nie miejsca w tym artykule. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Zdzisław Jezioro, also in Polish, [1]

greg park avenue (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bylo by milo gdybys skonczyl odwracac artykul Polish Air Force do poprzedniego, nieaktualnego stanu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryboy (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is an intriguing insignia on the fuselage near the nose (black, with wings). Do you know more about it? The MiG-21 appears to be non-operational. Is it in a museum or a park? --Jtir (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is MiG-21PFM #4106 of Polish Air Force with insignia of 10th Fighter Reg. from Łask, near Łódź (not existing anymore, replaced on 1 Jan 2001 by 10th Tactical Sqn. and 32nd AF Base) currently on display in Museum of Armament (Muzeum Uzbrojenia) in Fort Winiary (better known as Cytedela) in Poznań, Poland. Radomil talk 11:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, and insignia - this is black dragon - emblem of 1st Flight of 10th Fighter Reg. Radomil talk 12:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have added your detailed description to your image on Commons. I did some copyediting, but I'm not an aviation or military specialist, so my usage may not be quite right. What is the Polish for "black dragon emblem"? A closeup might be a nice addition to Polish Air Force. There appears to be a square panel obscuring part of the emblem. Do know what that is? --Jtir (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional details. Now I see that the "panel" is part of the insignia. --Jtir (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Radomil, I edited about 2 hours to comment your deletion of German place names in this article -which I reverted. The edits are lost. To make it short: Good luck to change Rome to Rzym, and so on. Remember, we are in 2007, not in 1945. Gerhard51 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you like to have an edit war. Gerhard51 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Na moje oko trzeba by rozbudowac mniej wiecej dwukrotnie do DYKa, na razie to stub.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wypadałoby choć stubnąć... :) Ostatnio napisałem Toruń Fortress i na razie mi o fortyfikacjach pisac sie nie chce... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the duchy of Pomerania joined in to Saxony in 1164 and into the HRE in 1181, German settlement and adapting German law / language / culture followed thereon (see eg Ostsiedlung). Please note that the Pomeranian_language (East Pom) and Polabian dialects (West Pom) used before (Low) German was introduced are not equal to modern Polish, though related.

Please stop editwars on issues you obviously have not investigated deeply enough. If you want to discuss any specific matter you are welcome. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With Brandenburg there was always struggling and warfare as Brandenburg sought to integrate the duchy of Pomerania within its realm, she also claimed Pomerania inheritance as a whole and Uckermark in specific throughout history - despite she would not succeed getting the whole duchy of Pom until the last Griffin died heirless, Brandenburg eg advanced into and temporarily incorporatet Stargard and (most of) Uckermark. There were a lot of treaties of Pomeranian dukes against Brandenburg or other threatening neighbors like Mecklenburg. The HRE's central authority most of the time was very limited, armed and diplomatic conflicts between the HRE's states/duchies/principalities were common until Prussia succeeded to create a much or less unified centralistic Germany under its hegemony in late modern times.

But in "our" case, alliances as the one you mentioned are not suitable for determing the language used in the duchy. Please, don't have your editwar continued as it really makes no sense to deny historical facts that can be studied with a low amount of time and means. Please inform yourself before further false edits are made.

Maybe you are confusing the duchy of Pom with Pomerelia? I really don't know what else I can do to get you study a bit of Pomeranian history which would prevent you from making false edits. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get the point. Just because HRE was not a nation state in modern sense it does not mean that the duchy of Pomerania was not German. The duchy joined in as a Slavic one, yes, but the dukes themselves turned the duchy into a German one just thereafter. You need to read about Pomeranian history, I'm getting tired of stating what you could easily know by yourself if you would just start to inform yourself before starting a silly edit war. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a comment on talk:Dukes_of_Pomerania, you are invited to post further arguments there. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk:Dukes of Pomerania discussion is not intended to change WP:NCGN but to clarify the historical content and the English usage to those who are not comfortable with it. This discussion is not a poll to actually change the rules, so don't expect this to happen. If you want to establish a new naming rule, you need to start a poll on the WP:NCGN talk page. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I gave you the historical content, I gave you the links to the respective wiki rules. This is not about you vs me or PL vs DE, but simply about the English use of historical names in wiki. I will again give you the respective links. Let's make great articles and not have a silly war because of a misunderstanding.

WP:NCGN

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes: For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945 For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945 In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively. For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises. Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries. Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers. The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Enforcement

Skäpperöd (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you finally read some of the above links.

WP:NCGN:In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." Now, as the duchy does not exist anymore, it does not have any modern name. Yet, because the city the duchy took its specifying name from changed its name after WWII, the new name, although not really related to the duchy, might be given in parentheses for orientation.

Gdansk vote says, in case of cities, we should use the name of the respective time span we are in first and the other name in parentheses.

You might want to consult an admin if you have trouble applying the rules, or you might start a campaign to change these rules. Be aware that persistent edits against Gdansk vote consensus are treated alike vandalism (see above enforcement link).

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stettin was the only name of the city before 1945. Before 45, there was no double naming or a preference or anything because only one name existed. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk vote: Be aware that persistent edits against Gdansk vote consensus are treated alike vandalism (see above enforcement link in the above Gdansk vote template).

3RR Please read about 3RR-rule. You violated that rule already and can easily get blocked. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Skäpperöd (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cześć, wiem, że czas reakcji mam dosyć długi, ale to dlatego, że nie bardzo mogę dojść do ładu z tym, jak to właściwie było z tym Czarnieckim. Nie mam pod ręką dobrych źródeł drukowanych na ten temat, a szperając po Internecie, im bardziej się w to zagłębiam, tym bardziej się to wszystko nie trzyma kupy i nie wiem, czy to Wybicki coś pokręcił, czy też mnie brakuje informacji.

Zacznijmy od "wracania się przez morze". Z tego, co wiem, to jedyna morska przygoda Czarnieckiego polegała na sforsowaniu cieśniny o szerokości 400-500 m oddzielającej wysepkę Als od stałego lądu Jutlandii. Zdobywszy zamek Sønderborg w grudniu 1658 r., Czarniecki wrócił na stały ląd, aby kontynuować wyzwalanie Danii (a nie Polski) z rąk szwedzkich. Czarniecki wrócił do Polski dopiero we wrześniu 1659 r. [2]

Co do bytności hetmana w Poznaniu, to wiadomo mi tylko o naradzie wojennej, którą król Jan Kazimierz odbył z Czarnieckim i innymi dowódcami na poznańskim Zamku Królewskim 26 listopada 1657 r. Ale w takim razie Czarniecki nie mógł się wracać do Poznania, bo był tam jeszcze przed wyprawą do Danii. I nie było to "po szwedzkim rozbiorze", bo Potop jeszcze wtedy trwał. Może, jako poznaniak, wiesz o jakimś innym pobycie Czarnieckiego w Poznaniu, już po jego powrocie z Danii? Choć nawet jeśli wracał jeszcze do Poznania, to nie wiem, przed kim miałby wtedy "ratować Ojzyznę". Jak widzisz, znaków zapytania jest sporo. Mam nadzieję, że uda nam się to wspólnie wyjaśnić. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wielkie dzięki za wyjaśnienie. Postaram się teraz jakoś uporządkować fragment o Czarnieckim w Poland Is Not Yet Lost. Gdybyś jeszcze mógł zaproponować jakieś źródła (zarówno dot. Czarnieckiego, jak i związków Wybickiego z Poznaniem), na które można by się powołać w artykule, to byłoby cudownie. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czesc, jak dasz mi chwile to posprzatam ten balagan z silami powietrznymi ale co chwila mi cos zmieniasz i sie gubie :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryboy (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MON nie zna angielskiego :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryboy (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ja nie ruszalem tego tematu od miesiaca :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryboy (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what are you doing, ALL THE PICTURES ARE OF POLISH F-16. You are being a stubborn jerk. I'm trying to compromise. If you won't, I will report this issue to Wiki admins... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same could be said for all those old Russian- made aircraft and utility helicopters you put up. I'm trying to showcase the newest air craft that Poland has received and if you are such an expert then you would notice that there are TWO variant to the Polish F-16 (C AND D) one has TWO SEAT AND EXTRA FUEL TANKS WHILE THE OTHER IS A ONE SEATER... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.97 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets, put it this way... here in the US I heard from a few WIKI users that the polish Air Force Page is poorly set up and the way it was organized looked like they were still flying those old Soviet planes. All I'm trying to do is clean up the images and showcase the new aircraft... it you can't dig it, iguess you just won't get it... look and presentation might not be your strong suit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an account set up, At this point I think we can come to a compromise and include both versions, I will make a few changes let me know what you think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.91.34 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, In America they laugh at dumb "POLAKS" like you and Poland in general, because of things like this. I'm trying to make the page more up to date and show what is "new" and "show it in a positive manner". Also, I want to compromise and keep your ideas and photos, but for whatever reason you won't. " IS THE POLISH AIR FORCE GOING TO FLY THE GOVERNMENT VIP PLANE INTO COMBAT??? PEOPLE DON'T LOOK FOR UTILITY AIRCRAFT ON THE WEB, YET YOU PUT UP A WHOLE LINE OF PLANES THAT PEOPLE ARN'T INTERESTED IN"... Dude, you're stupid, you got no --public perception-- skills!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey idioto ja pochodze z Krakowa a teraz mieszkam w US. I widze jak tandetnie zagracasz "Polish Air Force" wiki page... Wes i puknij sie w leb... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.97 (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, You can have your edits... despite the fact that I tried to Compromise and include everyones pics, you kept on reverting back to you changes... Just to point out you don't own this site... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page to my watchlist. Anon's comments above are obviously personal attacks, if he does anything else I will semiprotect the affected pages - since he has a dynamic IP I cannot block him efficiently. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Poland_Uprising_(1848) I am currently trying to improve this article in every possible way. Seeing as you are from Poznań and frequently engage in Poznań related articles I would welcome your contribution in this regards if you have time.--Molobo (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has awarded you a status of a honorary member (since you never signed up on our membership page). Thank you for your Poland-related encyclopedic contributions! Please consider officially joining the project by moving yourself from the "Honorary members" list to the "Active members" list here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article; if you were to add some sources, it could be featured on our main page after a T:TDYK nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it here: [[3]]. For DYKs, language is not as big of a concern as references; if you could format the remaining one properly (example) and add more, this would help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:AM Pozna&-324;.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to add yourself to that list? You are listed as honorary instead of regular member due to your accomplishments and the fact you never bothered to add yourself to the list :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Wikipedia is not your private gallery, where you can display your works!!! Please try Commons or Flickr. BurgererSF (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Poland Newsletter • April 2011 For our freedom and yours Welcome to our first issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop: we have an active assessment department. As of now, our project has tagged almost 80,000 pages as Poland-related, out of which 1,500 still need a quality assessment, and 20,000, importance assessment. we have also begun B-class quality reviews on our talk page, and if our activity increases, hopefully we will be able to institute our own A-class quality reviews. As of now, we have about 500 C-class articles in need of a B-class review. If you'd like to help with them, instructions for doing B-class reviews are to be found in point 10 of our assessment FAQ. once an article is assessed it will appear in our article alerts and news feed, which provides information on which Poland-related articles are considered for deletion, move, or are undergoing a Good or Featured review. Watchlisting that feed, in addition to watchlisting our project's main page, is a good way to make sure you stay up to date on most Poland-related discussions. you can also see detailed deletion discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland (which is another good place to watchlist!) also, those articles will be included in our cleanup listing, which allows us to see which top-importance articles are in need for attention, and so on newly created Poland-related articles are listed here. They need to be reviewed, often cleaned-up, and its creators may need to be welcomed and invited to our project we are maintaining a Portal:Poland automated Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages lists the most popular Poland-related pages from the previous month(s) This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a [member link] at WikiProject Poland. • Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

On behalf of WPPOLAND - we hope to see you back with us again one day! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WPPOLAND - we hope to see you back with us again one day! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ship prefix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pl. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Poland Newsletter • January 2014 • Issue II For our freedom and yours Welcome to the second issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; we get close to a hundred discussion threads each year and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. Last year we were featured in the Signpost, and our interviewer was amazed at our activity. In the end, however, even as active as we are, we are just a tiny group - you can easily become one of our core members! In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop: we have an active assessment department. As of now, our project has tagged almost 83,000 pages as Poland-related - that's an improvement of over 3,000 new pages since the last newsletter. Out of which 30 still need a quality assessment, and 2,000, importance assessment. We have done a lot to clear the backlog here (3 years ago those numbers were 1,500 and 20,000, respectively). Can you help assess a few pages? assessing articles is as easy as filling in the class= and importance= parameters on the talk page in the {{WPPOLAND|class=|importance=}} template. See here for a how-to guide. once an article has an assessment template, it will appear in our article alerts and news feed, which provides information on which Poland-related articles are considered for deletion, move, or are undergoing a Good or Featured review. Watchlisting that feed, in addition to watchlisting our project's main page, is a good way to make sure you stay up to date on most Poland-related discussions. you can also see detailed deletion discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland (which is a good place to watchlist if you just want to stay up to date on possible deletions of Poland-related content) we have also begun B-class quality reviews on our talk page, and if our activity increases, hopefully we will be able to institute our own A-class quality reviews. As of now, we have about 500 C-class articles in need of a B-class review. If you'd like to help with them, instructions for doing B-class reviews are to be found in point 10 of our assessment FAQ. In addition to this automated list, you are also encouraged to help review articles from our B-class reviews requested list found here. also, those articles will be included in our cleanup listing, which allows us to see which top-importance articles are in need for attention, and so on. We have tens of thousands articles in need of cleanup there, so if you ever need something to do, just look at this gigantic list. (I am currently reviewing the articles tagged with notability, either proving them notable or nominating for deletion; there are still several dozens left if you want to help!). did you know that newly created Poland-related articles are listed here. They need to be reviewed, often cleaned-up, occasionally nominated for deletion, and their creators may need to be welcomed and invited to our project if they show promise as new authors of Poland-related content. we are maintaining a Portal:Poland automated Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages lists the most popular Poland-related pages from the previous month(s) Breaking news: we are looking for a Wikipedian in Residence for the New York City area. See Wikipedia:GLAM/Józef Piłsudski Institute of America for details. This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? It took me three years to finish this issue. Feel free to help out getting the next one before 2017 by being more active in WikiProject management :) You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a member at WikiProject Poland. Please remove yourself from the mailing list to prevent receiving future mailings. Newsletter prepared by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here and sent by Technical 13 (talk) using the Mass message system.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This media was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices,

However, due to changes in the copyright situation in some jurisdictions, there is a need to ensure media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed. It would be appreciated if you were able to confirm that it was your own work, by marking it as {{own}}, Fully completeing the {{information}} block, and leaving an acknowledgement on the file description page to indicate that you've accepted the license shown (and updated the {{information}} accordingly. If you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created here.

If you don't want to keep your media on English Wikipedia, please nominate it for deletion under Criteria G7 of the Criteria for Speedy deletion

If media remains unclaimed for over a year, it may be removed to ensure Wikipedia stays in compliance with copyright and media licensing policy.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPROMISED. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Cyryl Ratajski Pomnik.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Hipopotam karłowaty.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low quality, superseded by files at c:Category:Hexaprotodon_liberiensis.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Lim-1 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26 § Lim-1 until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]