| Revision as of 23:59, 18 October 2005 editMolobo (talk | contribs)13,968 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:14, 19 October 2005 edit undoMolobo (talk | contribs)13,968 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| ==Hallo Tirid== | ==Hallo Tirid== | ||
| We will need another vote to clear things up on Gdansk vote.Currently the vote can lead to abuses such as naming Warsaw Warschau.--] 23:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | We will need another vote to clear things up on Gdansk vote.Currently the vote can lead to abuses such as naming Warsaw Warschau.--] 23:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| I don't what is going on Witkacy.He was a good contributor.Last time I contacted him he said he had a lot of work.Hopefull he will get back.As to Gdansk vote, for now I see no sense in disputing the main vote(although obviously the time period from 1466 to 1793 should be changed).However for now we should prepare a good thought over vote on seperating other locations from Gdansk.It leds to all sorts of abuses and in fact the current vote would led to naming of all Polish locations by German names since whole Poland was occupied in WW2 by Germany and thus "shares history".The vote doesn't precise what "shares history" means for example(after all Warsaw certainly "shares history" with Germany and thus under the vote it could be named Warschaus just as Poznan could be named Posen). | |||
| --] 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| So in conclusion let us begin work and thinking on the "other places" vote, then on period of Gdansk in 1466-1793(you will notice there was majority of votes for naming it Gdansk during that period but admins(and what a surprise it was Chris_73) decided to ignore all 12 votes for Polish name. | |||
| --] 00:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:14, 19 October 2005
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Misplaced Pages:Help or drop me a line. BTW, I converted the bmp image you uploaded to a more web browser friendly png format and also downsized it for you. Please do continue improving Philippines -- it needs a lot of work. Cheers! --maveric149
Ummm... where did you get that crest? I'm a Filipino and it's the first time I ever saw that. I'm quite sure that that isn't the coat-of-arms of the Philippines. I have an image here but i have yet to scan it. --seav
Hello Tirid, I have noticed that you have gotten involved in Silesia. As you may know, that page has been under a lot of editing and discussion recently, much of which was less than friendly, and the page repeatedly had to be protected when it became the subject of outright edit wars. I would like to advise you that edit summmaries such as "removed revisionist propaganda" are not likely to contribute to a climate of Wikilove, nor are such edits likely to last long or to improve the page. Also, your two (so far) edits there were both marked "minor", which they definitely weren't, and it is considered very bad style to do this. If you are truly interested in improving that page, please stop marking major, NPOV-related edits as minor, and moderate your language. Otherwise you will very soon be viewed as a partisan or worse, and you will not be likely to achieve anything but trouble. Best regards, Kosebamse 18:30, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Prussia.JPG. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks much, Kbh3rd 03:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for supporting me in the Gdansk/Danzig conflict. I think we should inform one another every time we receive threats of being blocked/of sites being deleted, etc. Maybe it's time to organise a new voting action and mobilise the Polish users and other supporters of the Gdansk option to act? I'm not a fanatic, I could agree with some points of the Gdansk discussion, but renaming Lwow to Lemberg is way too much. Best greetings! --ish_warsaw 16:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The Vote on Danzig/Gdansk is pretty clear and supports double naming also for places like Eastern Pomerania, which is a is a geographical and historical region. Please do not remove double naming -- Chris 73 Talk 20:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Hallo Tirid
We will need another vote to clear things up on Gdansk vote.Currently the vote can lead to abuses such as naming Warsaw Warschau.--Molobo 23:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't what is going on Witkacy.He was a good contributor.Last time I contacted him he said he had a lot of work.Hopefull he will get back.As to Gdansk vote, for now I see no sense in disputing the main vote(although obviously the time period from 1466 to 1793 should be changed).However for now we should prepare a good thought over vote on seperating other locations from Gdansk.It leds to all sorts of abuses and in fact the current vote would led to naming of all Polish locations by German names since whole Poland was occupied in WW2 by Germany and thus "shares history".The vote doesn't precise what "shares history" means for example(after all Warsaw certainly "shares history" with Germany and thus under the vote it could be named Warschaus just as Poznan could be named Posen). --Molobo 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
So in conclusion let us begin work and thinking on the "other places" vote, then on period of Gdansk in 1466-1793(you will notice there was majority of votes for naming it Gdansk during that period but admins(and what a surprise it was Chris_73) decided to ignore all 12 votes for Polish name. --Molobo 00:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)