User talk:Piotrus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



This user wrote Kiev Offensive (1920), which is a good article. This user wrote Polish legislative election, 1957, which is a good article. This user wrote Poznań 1956 protests, which is a good article. This user wrote Polish October, which is a good article. This user wrote Kiev Expedition (1018), which is a good article. This user wrote Polish culture during World War II, which is a good article. This user wrote Łódź insurrection (1905), which is a good article. This user wrote Minority Treaties, which is a good article. This user wrote Battle of Kostiuchnówka, which is a good article. This user wrote Vilna offensive, which is a good article. This user wrote Holocaust in Lithuania, which is a good article. This user wrote Żydokomuna, which is a good article. This user wrote Smolensk War, which is an A-class article. This user wrote Armia Krajowa, which is an A-class article. This user wrote Armia Krajowa, which is an A-class article. This user wrote Armia Krajowa, which is an A-class article. This user wrote Max Weber, a featured article. This user wrote Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a featured article. This user wrote Witold Pilecki, a featured article. This user wrote Battle of Warsaw (1920), a featured article. This user wrote Stanisław Koniecpolski, a featured article. This user wrote Władysław Sikorski, a featured article. This user wrote Polish-Soviet War, a featured article. This user wrote May Constitution of Poland, a featured article. This user wrote Polish September Campaign, a featured article. This user wrote Sociocultural evolution, a featured article. This user wrote History of Poland (1945-1989), a featured article. This user wrote Polish-Muscovite War, a featured article. This user wrote Katyń massacre, a featured article. This user wrote History of Solidarity, a featured article. This user wrote Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), a featured article. This user wrote Józef Piłsudski, a featured article.
There is no Cabal

Image:Qxz-ad39.png Image:Qxz-ad20.gif

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 24. 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.
Archive

Talk archives: Archive 1 (created Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (created Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (created May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (created July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (created September 27, 2005), Archive 6 (created November 23, 2005), Archive 7 (created January 7, 2006), Archive 8 (created 19 March, 2006), Archive 9 (created 6 May, 2006), Archive 10 (created 17 June, 2006), Archive 11 (created 28 July, 2006), Archive 12 (created 25 September, 2006), Archive 13 (created 28 October, 2006), Archive 14 (created 27 December, 2006), Archive 15 (created 4 February, 2007), Archive 16 created 20 March, 2007), Archive 17 (created 17 May, 2007), Archive 18 (created 30 July, 2007), Archive 19 (created 25 September, 2007), Archive 20 (created 5 November, 2007), Archive 21 (created 2 January, 2008), Archive 22 (created 19 February, 2008), Archive 23 (created 8 April, 2008), Archive 24 (created 15 May, 2008), Archive 25 (created 8 July, 2008), Archive 26 (created 5 October, 2008), Archive 27 (created 4 January, 2009), Archive 28 (created 19 March, 2009) add new

Reasons for my raising wikistress: Not that many, trolls sufficiently suppressed
Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :)

If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that I will either:

  • seek community approval of my adminship through an RfC; (no consensus = no change) or
  • choose to take the matter to ArbComm

at my discretion

  • once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria
  • and the matter concerns my admin powers rather than a non-admin editing concern.
  1. Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse.
  2. My "good standing" criteria include
a) the requirement that if the user is calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least a week.
b) the requirement that the user should be neutral towards my person. This means that if a user is or has been involved in a DR procedure with me as a party or has been as active as one, I doubt that user is neutral and I reserve the right to not count this editor as "an editor in good standing" in this case. Hint: it's easy to find a neutral party, like mediators - if you can convince them you are right...
c) I reserve the right to impose additional criteria in the future.
I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms.

[edit] Current RfAdminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
TheDJ 2 63 9 3 88 21:02, 25 April 2009 2 days, 21 hours
no
 report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by SoxBot (talk) at 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Privislinsky Krai

I will get the books; just don't get your hopes too high—the few books dealing with the administrative divisions of Poland of the 19th century that I have are mostly reference lists of populated places, but I'll see if there's anything useful in the intros.

Regarding the legend, here's the translation. The scale of the map is 48 versts per English inch. Left column of the legend:

  • Governorate-level town
  • Uyezd (district)-level town
  • Non-uyezd towns (those which had town status but did not serve as uyezd seats)/posad
  • Railroad

Right column:

  • State border
  • Governorate border
  • Uyezd border

Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:53, March 12, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

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

[edit] AfD nomination of Honorverse concepts and terminology

I have nominated Honorverse concepts and terminology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorverse concepts and terminology. 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --EEMIV (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That which I feared has now happened. User:EEMIV has successfully pushed the merge of Imperial Andermani Navy‎ and now has

  1. tagged Technology in the Honorverse and Weapons technology in the Honorverse with PROD’s;
  2. blanked (that is, turned into redirects) Office of Frontier Security and State Security;
  3. tagged for deletion (as AfD’s) Treecat, List of treecats and Honorverse concepts and terminology
  4. Is about to do the same to Elysian Space Navy, Royal Manticoran Navy and probably others. Debresser (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you support me here, please? Debresser (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Warsaw

I see you have started adding some refs. Do you want some more time? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The IPN minibio appears to be a #3 source. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

?? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relpied on my talk YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battles of Medieval Poland

Surely I will not, but first I have to finish it. I need some 2-3 days, I guess. :) belissarius (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] re east upper silesia

I thought about redirecting this to Regierungsbezirk Kattowitz, but since minor parts were administered within Regierungsbezirk Oppeln, I decided to rather stub East Upper Silesia as for this reason it was unprecise to just redirect to the Kattowitz government region. However, I would not object strongly if someone says these articles should be merged, as East Upper Silesia and Reg-bez Kattowitz for the most part do overlap and eg Heinemann uses the terms synonymously. Either way another redlink is blue now :) Skäpperöd (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lakhva Ghetto

That's not how consensus on Wikipedia works. You were WP:BOLD, another editor objected to your changes and reverted -- you now need to obtain consensus to move forward with your edits. See WP:CYCLE. I'm not necessarily opposed to the change, although personally I would need convincing. Raise it on the talk page. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your edit summary comment "of course the subject is notable and deserves a separate article". Don't disagree with the notability, but I'm not sure that is the criteria for an article split in this case. That's why one needs to discuss major changes like an article split. I don't fault you for being bold, but since concerns have been raised in respect of your major change, it would be great if you discussed them first. And I agree with your talk page comment that any split article should actually be at Łachwa Ghetto, assuming we get to the point where we agree on a split. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am also not sure that I agree with your suggestion that a small ghetto does not merit inclusion in the template. There are actually two sources saying that it was the first uprising, with another suggestion that it might have been. I'm not sure that size or lack of sources justify its removal, but I would be happy to discuss it.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing to discuss it, and I will add my thoughts where you suggested. Please wait for the discussion to play out before merging histories, etc. The 2006 split was more odd than anything else, a cut and paste job that left both articles virtually identical, by an editor that was subsequently banned. It may be later in the day before I get the chance to comment - I'm not ignoring you, I just need to be somewhere right now. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Will do. I'll post it a bunch of places this afternoon. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] silesia

I removed a part of a sentence you added to East Upper Silesia, i.e. "most of West Upper Silesia was restored to Poland". West Upper Silesia is/was the Oppeln/Opole region, that is now completely in Poland, but was not in Poland before. So it was neither most nor restored. Most would however be correct for Lower Silesia, which is/was the Breslau/Wroclaw region, the westernmost parts of which are still in Germany - yet "restored" would not fit there either. The propblems with "West" and East" of Silesia are related to the problems common in regard to Pomerania: While the Germans regarded the West of each of these regions as Pomerania/Silesia proper, it was the other way around for the Poles. So Slask is used in Poland when referring to the Kattowitz/Kattowice region (East Upper Silesia), while the other regions (which were not Polish before) have the qualifications Slask Opolski (West Upper Silesia) and Dolnyslask (Lower Silesia, west of West Upper Silesia). Regards Skäpperöd (talk)

[edit] Polish Light Cavalry and Polish Medieval Battles

Nie dałoby się umieścić info, że w polskiej wersji oba artykuły mają medal? belissarius (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: I have no slightest idea what question in the case of battles I should put in the TDYK... Any suggestion? belissarius (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found it already, so, no problemas, gringo! :) belissarius (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] News on the GURPS front

Catherine has processed the adoption request 8) --Roguebfl (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry!

Appologies for deleting the names from your list of Poles. I just assumed that was allowed (I didn't notice on your main page of the list indicating not to do that). Also note that in that edit where I removed some of the blue links, I fixed the links to two of them, as one lead to a disambiguation page (Karol) and one lead to the wrong person (Mikola). Anyway, keep up the great work!Calaka (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Będzin Ghetto

Updated DYK query On April 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Będzin Ghetto, 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.
Shubinator (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help on RS queery

Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] B Class

I am not familiar with all those classes. Could you explain to me what it means that the Battle of Yevenes article is nominated as the B Class article? I understand that the very first is FA, next GA, then A, B, C etc. classes. Is the nomination final? Or it is to be later reconsider. My question is because in the TTDYK someone gave "the brillant article" quotation to this, and then I have the B Class. How could I understand these? belissarius (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus"
Personal tools