Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:54, 24 March 2007

Welcome to the Poland-related notice board!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Lists of Polish composers and painters

The list of Polish composers has turned into a joke. Besides, it shares the same fate as all lists of the similar kind. Take a look. On 12 January 2007 User:81.219.149.110 who did nothing else in Misplaced Pages added 14 names to the list in one sweep, hot linking them in red. The subtitle of the article says that the List of Polish composers is a list of "notable and representative Polish composers." Meanwhile, quite a few new names added by User:81.219.149.110 were of people born after 1980 who are in their early twenties now, fresh from school at best. The article is advertised on List of Poles in Music section as the so called "Main article."
The same can be said about the List of Polish painters. 135 names on that list are dead linked in red. And again, the list is advertised on the List of Poles as the so called Main article in the Fine arts subsection. This is beyond vanity. This is spamming. --Poeticbent  talk  04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see relevant discussion above as well as recently started discussion about artist notability criteria at WP:N(P).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On the entire list of Germans there are only nine names hot linked in red. On the corresponding List of Italians there are also just nine names marked in red. On the list of Italian painters, which is linked to the main article under "see also" (not "Main article") there's ony one name hot linked to an empty page. What I mean is that in most cases (with notable exceptions), if there's no article on a particular individual, there's no place for that name on the list of notable Poles. Notability criteria for artists is one thing, spamming the list of notable Poles is another. --Poeticbent  talk  16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose adding the following information at the top of the list:

Names that cannot be confirmed in Misplaced Pages database nor through given sources are a subject of removal. If you would like to add a new name please consider writing about the artist first.

--Poeticbent  talk  19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Red links should not be permitted on people lists, especially the more spam-prone general ones, unless acompanied by a reference.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections to this proposal, would you please post the above disclaimer on the corresponding pages including List of Polish painters, List of Polish composers and possibly the List of Poles. Once there, I’d like to propose and help to conduct a cleanup job. --Poeticbent  talk  16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but the tone of the text above is not right. Karol 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The above disclaimer has been rephrased and posted twice by User:LeszekB and than confirmed by User:Logologist in his edits, with User:Poeticbent and User:Piotrus in agreement. That's why I urge User:Karol to seek consensus for his novel ideas rather than attempt to whitewash the chronic deficiency of the list of Polish composers. --Poeticbent  talk  21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Please note we have 2 functioning userboxes:

{{User WikiProject Poland}}

This user is a member of the WikiProject Poland.

{{User WPMILHIST Polish military history task force}}

"Lviv-Warsaw Philosophical School of Logic"

User:Gerea-en has moved "Lwów-Warsaw School of Logic" to "Lviv–Warsaw Philosophical School of Logic." Two questions:

• 1. Why "Philosophical School"?
• 2. Why "Lviv"?

Any thoughts? logologist|Talk 06:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Google search doesn't support the new version.Xx236 11:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that pesky en dash. It should be changed back to a hyphen. Appleseed (Talk) 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert as disputed controversial move with no consensus. Simple.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I had previously undone Gerea-en's move of the article. This time, "The page could not be moved." Is there an administrator who could facilitate a move? I have limited experience of wiki-bureaucracy, and at the moment little desire to increase that experience. logologist|Talk 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I expect that the redirect page must be removed and the move will be possible.Xx236 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect, and the School of Logic still would not repatriate. logologist|Talk 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've succeeded in getting the article over to "Lwow-Warsaw School of Logic," but of course that's not fully satisfactory, without the "ó" in "Lwów." logologist|Talk 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Coat of arms of Prus"

An article title like "Coat of arms of Prus" seems awkward and ambiguous. Why not "Prus coat of arms"? Better yet, "Prus coat-of-arms"? logologist|Talk 06:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd suggest renaming all coats from Category:Polish coats of arms to such a model at once (bot?), otherwise we will have a mess.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Who knows how to set a bot to the task?

I would strongly urge the "coat-of-arms" version, with hyphens, for enhanced legibility of the phrase.

logologist|Talk 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the version without hyphens is most common. Appleseed (Talk) 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

When I searched Google for "coat-of-arms" the results automatically included "coat of arms."
My results displayed:

• about 1,660,000 for "coat of arms"
  
• about 1,640,000 for "Coat of Arms"
  

It all boils down to personal preference. My preference is with "coat of arms" since the first 200 web results I looked at use it without exception. Phrase "coat-of-arms" is used only 4 times in the first 500 pages displayed by Google. It's an oddity. --Poeticbent  talk  17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize "coat-of-arms" as an "oddity," any more than I would "commander-in-chief." Still, I won't fight over the hyphens, as long as we can get something less clunky than "Coat of arms of Prus." logologist|Talk 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bot requests is the place to ask for bots to do something like this, I believe.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Exploding Diet

Is the term "Exploding Diet" used to describe the Sejm of the PLC? Google Books and Google Scholar turn up nothing (Poland-related, that is). I think the article should be deleted. It's probably bogus and doesn't contain any information worth merging into Sejm. Appleseed (Talk) 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though the article does not provide a single source, there’s something similar (if not equally puzzling) here. The document at www2.fultonschools.org is called APE REVIEW. The only reference to "exploding diet" is phrased as a question: What three states declined in Central/eastern Europe in the 17th & 18th centuries & why? Include: Peace of Karlowitz, exploding diet, Germanic liberties & capitulations.
The quiz called APE REVIEW could also be based on a hoaxed article about Poland created by User:69.212.2.169 on 19 October 2005, but I have no way of finding out what came first, the article or the quiz? My gut feeling is that it might be a hoax. The same user made some very suspicious edits to only 4 articles and than ceased to exist on that date. --Poeticbent  talk  22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote move to Misplaced Pages:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Balcer 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Second the motion. logologist|Talk 00:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A useful tool: sortable tables

See Help:Sorting.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Piłsudski na Kasztance - for deletion

See Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_March_4#Image:Jozef_Pilsudski_na_Kasztance.jpg and comment on this example of meta:copyright paranoia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some remarks

You asked me to join the project, so I went and read something. Look at the "discussion" of the articles Battle of Somosierra and Plan Peking and read my remarks. There are only two articles I could read today and I am scared. If other articles are in the same condition, probably we have to start whole project from the very begining. We can not place on en-Wiki wrong translations or false informations if we do not want to create for us opinion of amateurs and dilettantes. belissarius 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of us are amateurs and dilettantes. There are precious few professionals editing Misplaced Pages (despite calls to arms). I am not aware of any professional historian with Polish specialization contributing to this project - we do what we can. We have done quite a few articles that I think we can be proud of (Polish-Soviet War, Katyn massacre, Jogaila) - but yes, it's a tip of the iceberg. Alas, there is only that much that a small group of volunteers can do :/ Still, every day, it gets better... Thank you for your comments - every little bit helps. And remember: Be bold in updating pages.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand (please, do not feel offended for "dilettantes") - correct me if I am wrong - am I able to update, improve or correct articles I found not paralelled with historical science? If so, I am starting tomorrow. Here I will just show you what I am telling about:

our knowledge of the Battle of Somosierra have two sources - one is the 13. Bulletin of de Grande Armeé, and the second "Memoirs of the 1. Regiment of the Polish Chevaulegers of the Imperial Guard of Napoleon I" written by Jozef B. Zaluski in the Krakow's periodical "Czas" from 1856 to 1858. There are not other evidences from eye-witnesses of the battle, and we have to back our article on that relations. Author(s) of the mentioned pl-Wiki and en-Wiki articles used instead the dubious article from the Polish newspaper "Rzeczpospolita" in which I can see many mistakes, as for number of cannons in the Spanish batteries, as well as for number of charges. I am going to improve the article in pl-Wiki as well. belissarius 05:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can edit anything you want. If you can, please use inline citations to back up any changes. And feel free to ask us for help on any technical matters!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Polish Voivodeships 1919-1939

Obviously, this work will never be done, but I can say that more or less it is ready. Please check out the category

http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Polish_historical_voivodeships_%281921%E2%80%931939%29

I have described the voivodeships of interbellum Poland, adding a trivia page. Please feel free to add any information you find Tymek 18:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Józef Kloze

Józef Kloze, an article about a Polish former footballer , was brought to my attention when it was nominated on AfD (it looks like a landslide keep). In searching for sources to expand it I found little in English, but it looks as though there are several promising online sources in Polish. Would any Polish-speaking Wikipedian care to expand it a little? Thanks. Oldelpaso 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Poles

List of Poles has been revamped as of March 14, 2007, with considerable team effort. I invite you all to check it out. --Poeticbent  talk  18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Very nice job. It seems to have been cleared of anyone dubiously Polish. A reminder to everyone that the list is a brief mention of famous Poles, so it would probably be wise if the most popularly known Poles were given precedence in the Literature and Painting sections etc. Just for future tweaks.

Last Polish list needing clean up

Anyway, I've been trying to establish this same sort of standard for Polishness on List of Polish Jews, including the addition of a header, but it was met with a ferocious edit war and at this point has just rounded down to bickering on the talk page. The opposing side is pretty much exhausted of any new arguments so now it's just dwindled into strange accusations of original research and precedence. If anyone cares to comment, it would help in whipping that list back into shape. LeszekB 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation of Poland (1939-1945)

There is discussion about scope and name of this article. Former name was 'Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers '. Comments appreciated on article's talk page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

One user is disputing whether this article deserves the GA status (it was recently promoted). Comments appreciated on article's talk page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Two art categories?

Would anybody see a good reason why we have Category:Polish art as a subcategory of Category:Arts in Poland? I'd suggest merger.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the standard category structure. Appleseed (Talk) 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I am sorry, but I don't see any difference between those categories based on name...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I supose that "Polish art" is for masterpieces of polish artists no matter of their current owner or place of exhibition."Arts in Poland" would be for pieces that are currently in Poland, like Leonardo's Dama z łasiczką. Radomil talk 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Each one has a "by country/nationality" parent category, which means that other cultures also have both these categories. Appleseed (Talk) 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the arts, the term "the arts" is broader than "art", so perhaps "Arts in Poland" should be the parent of "Polish art" and not the other way around. Appleseed (Talk) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Silesians

Heve we got any idea how to deal with this article? Many articles that lik there refers no to modern ethnic group but to tribe of Ślężanie Radomil talk 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Split? Ślężanie can certainly use the article, what's left is about modern Silesians.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:List of Poland-related topics

I suggest sending this forgotten artifact to WP:MFD. Any objections?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me, let's get rid of it. Appleseed (Talk) 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just {{prod}} it to spare everyone's time. --Irpen 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Herb K Maly.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Herb K Maly.gif. 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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is User:Emax artifact. Please help with fixing it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek on trial

One of our members, User:Darwinek, has shown some bad judgement recently (blocking opponents he was involved in a dispute). This is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. I believe some friendly but stern comments about 'with great power comes great responsibility' would help Darwinek to understand the situation. I believe he has made a mistake (or several) and should be more careful in the future, although some proposed solution (including banning from the project!) seem over the top.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please do not use strawman arguments to canvass supporters. Obviously, the banning won't fly. Desysopping might as the user has a pattern of poor judgment and repetition of bad blocks after past apologies. Also, the user in question has repeatedly attacked his opponents with extreme offenses including in non-Enlgish, including after requests to at least use English. Some of such offenses took place in your own exchanges with Darwinek, also in Polish, were you joined him and used ethnic slurs bashing your and Darwinek's "enemies". --Irpen 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose you have any diffs to support any of your accusations? This board is not the place for your personal grievances against various editors. Appleseed (Talk) 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least we have another evidence of Irpen accusing his opponents of canvassing and using ethnic slurrs...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Falsely accusing you mean? This persistent demands for the diffs aimed at wasting my time when you know exactly what I am talking about goes on and on. But here it is just for you. --Irpen 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you for providing diffs to the place where Darwinek explains in Zaolzie gwara this word has no negative connotations he is aware off. But of course you assume bad faith and go on to accuse him of ethnic slurrs in several places over the past few months...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, in that particular set of diffs, an ethnic slur came from your mouth where you responded to Darwinek. Darwinek entry was simply a very disrespectful comment on directed towards his peer-editors. And I also meant to include this one, to which your gracious entry was a response. --Irpen 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Why do you forget to mention that this 'ethnic slur' was discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Piotrus (which ended in another editor close to getting a civility parole and certainly no consensus it was an ethnic slurr), similar no consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive145#Disruption_during_polls_and_xenophobic_remarks - and in any case since some do perceive it as offensive, I apologized for it (at User:Durova/Mediation - even through, I repeat again, many users agreed it is not offensive). You, on the other hand, have never apologized for many personal attacks you've made on my person - such as your constant accusations of canvassing/vote staking (just see this page, do I need to provide a diff?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My "accusation" for the vote staking is not a personal attacks. If you can show any evidence of my "attacks" on you, I am ready to look at it and withdraw if there were any. It is, however, Darwinek, who is on trial here. I think the user went much further than accusing others of staking and canvassing as I have explained above. --Irpen 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this is neither discussion of Irpen's or Piotrus edits, it is EOT for me. However, Irpen, if you continue to accuse my every second post on this board of being 'canvassing', I will seek WP:DR steps, as I consider such behaviour offensive to me and disruptive to other editors (who have little interest in reading discussions such as above).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I can't prevent you from seeking any steps you want. I've seen much of your wikilawyering at different Misplaced Pages space boards and I expect this to continue. I pointedly do not see any diffs showing my "personal attacks" in your last entry. --Irpen 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Wilno (1939)

Poll for renaming the article. Comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS again? Piotrus, did you see that one vote was closed early because of canvassing earlier today? --Irpen 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before, this board is intended for exactly these types of announcements. I myself have made announcements about proposed page moves in the past, without any problems. I shall say it again: this board is not the place to air your grievances against other editors. Appleseed (Talk) 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads OT case

Appleseed, please cool down. I do not come here just to air some grievances. I comment on specific issues, be it recruiting help to save the user from well-deserved sanctions at arbcom or to affect the ongoing poll by the mass influx of votes like it has happened here. Besides we likely see only a tip of the iceberg when watching this board. Judging from this coordinated entry of three of this board's members with no visible onwiki communication, more seems to be going on behind the curtains. -Irpen 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that the unfortunate email campaign doomed the Internet Troll Squads article. But that has nothing to do with announcing proposed page moves on this board. As for your thinly veiled accusations regarding "three of this board's members", I suggest you take your conspiracy theories somewhere else. Appleseed (Talk) 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I apploud you for analyzing the wiki communication of those three members. Surely, it's would never be considered stalking, merely a proper analysis by a concerned Wikipedian to ensure there is no cabal. And indeed, your finding that they did not communicate on Wiki yet took part in the same vote is certainly proof enough of the existence of some cabal! Unfortunatly, this is nothing new, Irpen: Polish cabal is already listed at Misplaced Pages:List of cabals... On the other hand, may I suggest you further analyze the particulary interesting correlation between common characteristics of editors voting to delete? Who knows, maybe you will uncover something equally interesting... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, are you saying that these three votes of three wikifriends cast right one after another at that poll was a mere coincidence despite the poll's being run for several days and that no communication and calls to vote took place? If so, I will take your word that this was the case no matter how unlikely this seemed to me originally. --Irpen 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling you're not being sincere? There are many ways to find pages on WP. Relevant ones may include WP:AFD, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe, Special:Contributions, etc. But if you insist this board is just the "tip of the iceberg", a mere front for the various nefarious activities of the Polish Cabal, who am I stop you? Appleseed (Talk) 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, all it takes here is just say that the seemingly coordinated voting was a coincidence rather than a result of the off-wiki communication. I said already that I will take a user's word for it. Can you just say that no calls to vote were passed over the email or other off-wiki means? If you say yes, I will take it. --Irpen 20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: I am not aware of any editor asking others to vote in any specific way ('keep' or 'delete') in this case. However I personally spread information about this vote (ex. here and here). I see nothing wrong with spreading information about any vote or discussion, as long as there is no pressure on the users informed to vote in a specific way. Spreading information is the best way to ensure a fair vote/discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I keep getting this strange (perhaps wrongful) feeling that someone is trying to make a lawyerly Q&A game here. If I wanted to affect this vote, I would not need to ask a bunch of Lithuanian editors to vote in a "specific way". Just being selective in the set of users you notify is enough to ensure you get the right votes. My question was whether you (or anyone) have anything to do with those votes cast that way shortly one after another. I am not here to demand answers and you can ignore my questions but please do not play around with elaborated wording. My feeling is that some off-wiki communication took place in case of these three votes. I voiced my view. Now, you could just ignore my statement or state plainly that it is false (no off-wiki communication is responsible for this apparently coordinated set of votes). What I get instead is elaboratedly evasive answers. If you do not want to answer, do not answer but please spare me of the word games. It seems to me that the communication took place. So far, no one said that this was not the case in a straight way. --Irpen 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, it is you who is playing wikilawyering (or some other strange game). I told you clearly above that yes, I did spread information about this vote to other editors that might be interested. I gave you diffs to two groups (Russian editors and military editors) which I have notified. Out of curiosity: why don't you complain about me notifying the Russian editors and military history editors - certainly two large possible cabals with much interest in that vote? Certainly there is proof enough that many Russia-interested editors took part in that vote, and so there is much room to rant about canvassing in that regard, including off-wiki one, since I am not aware of any on-wiki notification about this AfD to Russian editors before my note, yet many took part in the debate before it... That said, I have no interest in speculating about who might have contacted who and how - as I wrote before, I believe information about such events should be spread as wide as possible, and if anybody spread info about this discussion, I don't care how or to whom he did so - more power to him, as long as he didn't force others to vote in a specific way. EOT for me.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, can you just say that you did not (or did) contact these two users off-wiki on this matter. Yes/no/"refuse to answer" are the only clear answers to the question that I can think of. You keep posing sets of off-topic opinions about what's proper and what's not. You can as well ignore the question which is the same as refuse to answer. You do not have to answer any question I am asking. But it is not constructive to respond with empty talk. If you don't feel like responding, then don't. --Irpen 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you first address the much more visible issue of high-number of Russia-interested editors dominating that vote? Or was it already addressed as an issue that only those editors should have the right to discuss?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, we can address the other issue first, if you want (but noting your persistent avoidance to give a straight answer to a very simple question). Your diff about makes gives an out of context citations and the context is given by the following entry. The loss of the invaluable editor of this project remains a sour wound to Misplaced Pages to this day, while you might not be so unhappy about having your content opponent not around anymore. Anyway, this is OT, I agree. The simple question was whether you sent emails to those users could have been answered with just one word. --Irpen 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to answer your simple questions in more detail when you fail to address any part of my questions. Out of curiosity, 'the loss of which invaluable editor' do you mean? Surely not User:Ghirlandajo, who is quite active both in article and various discussion namespaces...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Piotrus. Ghirla is not really editing anymore. You know that better than anyone as you did a lot to make this happen. --Irpen 00:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. So you accusee me of driving him away (proof?) and claim that a user with 20+ edits daily is 'not really editing'. You know, I'd very much like to drive away and thus raise the activity of editors like Halibutt () or Balcer () to that level. Alas, they seem to have been drivien away from this project by much more dedicated trolls than myself ;> Now, if you have nothing further to add to this other than bad faith speculations and attacks, I strongly suggest EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)