Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Poland: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:08, 8 May 2007 editMieciu K (talk | contribs)3,321 edits →Ciepielów - citations needed: typo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:16, 14 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 20) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
]
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-14 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Misplaced Pages notice board/Archive 8--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
{{Tmbox
|type = notice
|image = ]
|imageright = ]
|text = '''Welcome to the WikiProject Poland discussion!''' {{shortcut|WT:WPPL|WT:POLAND}}
|style = text-align:center;
}}
{{Tmbox
|type = notice
|image = none
|text = Please add new comments in if you are addressing a new issue. Thanks in advance.
|style = text-align:center;
}}
{{Tmbox
|type = notice
|image = none
|text = Useful shortcuts:<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>]<br/>
|style = text-align:center;
}}
{{tmbox | text = '''This WikiProject was featured on the ] at the Signpost on 20 February 2012.
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#>
|mask1=Misplaced Pages talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Archive<#>
|mask2=Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Misplaced Pages notice board/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(60d)
| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 20
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Poland}}
}}
{{archives|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=60|index=/Archive index|search=yes|collapsible=yes|
:'''Noticeboard archives (2005–2008):'''
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
:'''WikiProject archives (2009–present):'''
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
}}


== ] ==
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
|-
|<center>] Welcome to the Poland-related notice board! ]</center>
|-
|}


I have proposed that this article be deleted. I was not sure which process to follow, ], or ]. Any comments would be welcome. Thanks, ] (]) 05:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
|-
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''14''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
|-
|}


== Dividing ] into two or three articles ==
<center>
{| id="toc" style="margin: 0 2em 0 2em;"
! align="left" style="background:#ccccff" width="100%" | Please add new comments in if you are addressing a new issue. Thanks in advance.
|}
</center>
<br clear="all"/>
{{archive box|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]}}


Hi, I wrote more in detail about my proposal in the ], but in short, the name ] throughout history was used fir three different stations, one in the 1930s/1940s, one in 1940s–1990s, and current one built in 2021. As such, I want to propose to creating separate articles for them.] (]) 01:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
==Userboxes==
Please note we have 2 functioning userboxes:


== Renaming the ] to Democratic Party (Poland) ==
{{tl|User WikiProject Poland}}


Hi, I belive that the ] should be renamed to the "Democratic Party (Poland)". I think it would be a better translation of the name, and that current translation is wrong. Firstly, "alliance" means "sojusz", and not "stronictwo", which would be just "party". Word stronictwo, literally means 'a side of something', or 'a part of something', eg, a party. Futhermore, Polish title is in adjective form, so even "Democratic Alliance" would be more correct in this case. As such, "Alliance of Democrats" would rather be translation of "Sojusz Domokratów", than "Stronictwo Demokratyczne. What do you think? ] (]) 20:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
<div style="float: left; border:solid red 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: white;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: white; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt; color: black;" | ''']'''
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #000000;" | This user is a member of the ].
|}</div>


== Any people intrested in writing about WW2 in Warsaw, who would like to collaborate? ==
{{tl|User WPMILHIST Polish military history task force}}


Hi, I like writing Warsaw-related articles, such as about its neighbourhoods and buildings. But, I'm not the best when it comes to writing about WW2, and it's kinda a big topic when it comes to this city. So, I thought maybe there would be people with better expertise on the WW2 in Warsaw, who would like to collaborate with me. For example, I would write most of the article about some neighbourhood, and you would help me cover the revenant WW2 events in the history section etc? Idk, I just thought I could try to ask here. Feel free to write to me if you are interested :) ] (]) 21:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="float: left; border:solid #C0C090 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #F8EABA;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: wheat; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt; color: black;" | ''']'''
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #000000;" | This user is a member of the ] of the ].
|}</div>


== Requested move at ] ==
== Evil Poles ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran ] 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

] - some POVs are more equal than other ones.] 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:Well, that's just a good example of article based on 1911 Britannica and 19th century Russian historians. I tagged it with 1911 pov; at some point it will be rewritten and updated. Quite a few Polish history articles are in similar condition, too...if you find something like this, tag it and move on.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:Oh, canvassing, how nice... <_< -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
::Please keep your ] to yourself. Thank you, --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Piotrus, people are tired of your lecturing. Honest. It does not earn you any points. Please do not respond with a new barrage. Thank you. --] 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Your incivility and attempts to censor other users are what is not welcomed here. Please take my advice to Grafikm to yourself too and keep such mean-spirited comments off wiki: discuss articles, not editors, per ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I As you can see from above, almost knew it. :( Too bad... --] 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I am glad this prompted me to read the corresponding chapters of the American historian ]. I will sure expand the article. --] 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the old Russian-American ]? There is his younger follower ].] 09:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

==]==
If someone could perhaps translate the pl.wiki section on his current troubles, I would appreciate it. an opinion piece on it. Let me also say that I commend Poland's efforts in this area. No one who had links to the communist power structure has any business participating in politics today. Would that the rest of Europe had people like the Kaczyński brothers and Roman Giertych running it. ] 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:Ummm... yes to the first part, no to the second one :) Think in terms of ']' :D --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

== "Polish Cathedral' style nominated for Deletion ==

The Page ] has been nominated to be deleted. Please vote on this issue.
:Added to ]; please see other discussions there and vote on them too.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

==Warsaw Uprising FAR==
] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ].
] 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

==Do we need 2 Warsaw stubs?==
We have {{tl|warsaw-geo-stub}} and {{tl|warsaw-stub}}. I believe one is enough... --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

== Polish Football 1919-1939 ==

Should anyone want to help me expand the article I've just started, I would be grateful
http://en.wikipedia.org/Lower_Level_Football_Leagues_in_Interwar_Poland

greets ] 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

==PL-UA cooperation proposal==
;]
I propose all interested editors to join the authorities of our countries in this cooperative project. I hope there is a sufficient degree of interest and good will about at least this (yet) non-controversial topic if we can't do it all over WP. The ''']''' could be made a GA or, perhaps, an FA, and ''maintained'' such with our mutual attention and effort. Please help keeping this article cleaned up, help developing it and let's make sure the nationalism of any side can be kept in check while we work on this.

Football is one of the issues which strongly unite my country despite a host of issues that divide it. Let's hope that this topic can unite some Wikipedians divided over other articles.

Volunteers welcome? --] 22:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:Support. This is an important article, and getting it to a GA/FA status is needed. ]] 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:Great idea. Let me also suggest that we should work to improve other articles related to this one. Just to give one example, the infrastructure now being built to support Euro 2012 should be described. And here I have a request: having started the ] article about what must be one of the most important motorways for the event in Poland, I would like to see an article about the Ukrainian motorway it will connect to, the M10. Would any of you have the necessary information to get that article going? We could also use articles about other roads connecting the major venues in Ukraine. ] 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::Or (even more related) ] I once destubbed for DYK. That the final will be held there won't hopefully enrage my colleagues :). BTW, with some inline refs it can easily be GAed. All info is from the refs provided. Inlining them is all it would take (plus native speakers' copyediting). --] 01:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::Support, but as football is not one of my strong areas I am afraid I cannot help much. But I will see about the 'fringe' areas like infrastructure in Poland (particulary Silesia).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 05:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

==Armia Krajowa or Polish Home Army?==
See ] for ongoing discussion.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

==Polish communist PD template nomimated for deletion on Commons==
See ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

==Snowballing RfA==
I propose that next time, the campaign is run to snowball someone's RfAdm, the person behind it has decency to post such calls here rather than run it exclusively by email/IM/IRC or whatever, thus, at least, doing this campaign in the open.
:--] 01:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:] 02:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::The support of an admin for the inclusion of this message by Irpen disturbs me. I removed it twice because it is clearly aimed to start off another round of pointless conflict. After all, it amounts to an open accusation against everyone involved on this noticeboard that they might be a person without any decency. How pathetic and sad. And I still have no idea what this is about. Can anyone explain this to me? I beg you. What was the specific wrongdoing, and who might have been involved? ] 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, the "wrongdoing" is the behind the scenes canvassing to snowball an RfA. Who exactly was involved we cannot be sure precisely because this was not done in the open. And this is what really disturbs me. I mean, if one does such a thing, why not at least stand up to that? --] 02:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:You are right, we must get to the bottom of this. Shall I post this on the Russian, Ukrainian, German and Brazilian noticeboard to speed up the investigation? This indecent bastard might well be lurking there. I am being sarcastic of course, just to expose the ridiculousness of this whole exercise.

:Let me put this succintly: what is your evidence that the wrongdoing is somehow specifically connected to the Polish Noticeboard? If you have no evidence, then I strongly urge you to remove this whole thread. ] 02:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::I and Irpen meant ]. Sorry for not been absolutely clear. I think the proposal to do negative campaigning openly (if doing at all) is reasonable, obviously it applies to the both sides ] 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:::What sides? The RfA in question got 31 oppose votes. Are they predominantly from Poland? ] 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not predominantly. But many votes came from Polish corner of en-wiki (coincidence), being from users not exactly known for following RfA pages, (another coincidence) and there is lack of the onwiki communication that would explain such "fluctuation". --] 02:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:If you have a list of users you think acted in bad faith, report them to an appropriate page or take this up on their talk pages. Using this noticeboard paints all users interested in Poland with a black brush. Do you really see no problem with that? ] 03:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The primary question here is not about the users who voted. It is about whoever chose to send out these messages aimed a ''opposing the RfA'' who acted... should I say "improperly"? I think it is acceptable to campaign for someone, yes. I think it is acceptable in exceptional cases to even campaign ''against'' someone, just do that openly. --] 03:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with all you say above. I just think that bringing these concerns here is highly inappropriate. Look, it is almost obvious that the person who did this is one of the people who voted "oppose". So, the reasonable thing to do would be to contact those people specifically and make your statement. The highly unreasonable thing is to make this statement here, effectively besmirching and wasting the time of all the users participating on this page. ] 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:Let's see. How many members of this noticeboard took part in the voting? I count three based on list of members on the first page, but I will go easy on you and include "known Poles", which gives us five. Four of which voted oppose, one voted support (interesting, 20% cabal inefficiency? Neeed to work on that ;p). And those 4 votes snowballed 12% of the oppose vote. Huge... And the proof is that those four (five?) users apparently don't vote in RfA often and yet somewhow did it this time, right? Let me congratulate you on this research, could you present the statistical analysis (breakdown) of those user's activity in Misplaced Pages namespace, showing that they indeed rarely vote in RfA AND also show that they are exception (i.e. all other users who vote in RfA vote there much more often)? Also, please present correlations between voters in this RfA and membership on other projects / wiki-organizations, since I would like to see - due weight, you know - if cabals of any other kind may be responsible for snowballing this RfA one way or another. Finally, I can think of quite a few pages, in article and project space, that might have received attention from four or more 'Poles'; let me know if you need a list of such deviant behaviour before it is submited to Cabal Investigation Team. That said, please keep such stuff to cabal namespace; this noticeboard is not a place for it. PS. Alex, I never expected you to support such a bad faith witch hunt allegiation. PS2. ]. And who said this was not real :) PS3. ]... --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 05:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can run such "investigation" you are proposing. This would take time but doable. But are you sincere or you want me merely to spend time on this, just like you often tell me to find the diffs that you know are there? Can we find a simpler way to figure this out? Are you saying you are not aware of any email/IM/IRC campaign in question? My goal here is actually expressed in the top message. You used to post "problem articles", as you called them, in a special field until Balcer removed it. All I request is that ''if'' such campaigns are still being run, this is done openly. I am not even requesting their not being run... --] 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::P. S. As for your invoking ], I remember Geogre excellently putting it somewhere that AGF seems to be the most oft-cited and misused and poorly remembered but generously sprinkled argument in any dispute. I wonder how long ago you read this policy yourself. Do that.\! AGF is about ''edits'' (in the main space.) And secondly, AGF does not say "Be a fool." --] 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:I am confused. For months - if not years - you have been doing your best accusing members of this board and others of "canvassing" (to use your favourite phrase) and informing one another of various issues via wiki pages. Now you are saying you are ok with it?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 06:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am saying that doing it off-wiki is worse because it adds hypocrisy. The same improper campaign is then run behind the curtain of propriety. But let's just settle it since the question above is rather direct despite it is not clear from your post whether you noticed it. So, I repeat: ''Are you saying you are not aware of any email/IM/IRC campaign in question?'' --] 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Since this is Poland-related Misplaced Pages notice board, and this has now become a direct one-on-one discussion between you and Piotrus, would you be kind enough to move it to one of your talk pages? Thanks in advance. ] 06:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:::All I am saying here is that you should apologize for the members of this noticeboard for you allegations. If you have something to ask me, there is my user talk page for that.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 07:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no general offense here, Piotrus, to apologize for. I did not implicate the whole community in any way and those not involved have no reason to be offended. I brought the actions of someone in this community to the light of the rest. Maybe it would help the gullible folks who allowed themselves to be led last time to think better when (or if) such is repeated. As for having something to ask you, I asked twice already. I am not going to be asking for the third time. --] 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
::Irpen, if I came to your neighbourhood and put up a big billboard sign saying: "A dirty rotten bastard lives here" with no indication or proof of who that might be, and then defended my action by saying "but of course I did not want to offend the whole neighbourhood, only that one rotten bastard who shall remain nameless", how believable would I be? ] 15:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:As the subject whose RfA is being discussed here, I am sorry to see that it has become another source of incident between Russian-related and Poland-related editors. I can understand Irpen's feelings, because I had noticed it as well. It is not the number that counts, but it was the timing that was a little conspicuous. Piotrus was the first from this board to oppose, on 3 May 05:59; Darwinek followed on 16:52, Halibutt 19:04, Lysy 20:02, Appleseed the next day on 2:45 and LUCPOL on 16:35. 5 days of silence, and suddenly 6 entries in a day and a half. Knowing Piotrus' preference for contacting people in person (which he himself has admitted above), this raised my eyebrows a little, but I never ever thought about protesting against it, as I trust each and everyone would make their own decision, and if that decision is negative for me, than so be it and they are absolutely free to do so.
:Let me summarize by saying that I didn't care if Piotrus was sending off-wiki messages or not; if he did it would have been more gentlemanlike to do it on on-wiki, but I'm still okay with it.
:Now as the subject of this discussion, I hope that the fact I don't mind if there has been off-wiki contacts about my RfA or not, will go a long way towards ending this issue. I certainly hold absolutely no grudge against the users of this noticeboard, whether they voted oppose or support (or didn't vote at all). ]]] 11:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you, your mature response goes a long way to making me reconsider my vote down the line when you reapply for adminship. As for pattern voting, I wonder why for example 9+ editors known to me from Russian/Ukrainian noticeboards voted from 2 to 3 May, or what attracted Lithuanian wikproject users such as M.K. (first vote in RfA ever) or Dr. Dan (second). But I am not looking for any cabals, nor do I care what made them come there and vote: the vote is public and advertising for RfA is something I am pretty sure is within the rules (I saw it before and I don't mind it at all). The bigger campaign somebody can create - the better for him (her). And the same holds for opposition (it would be grossly unfair to allow only positive campaigning). Finally, with all this cabal stuff, a note to consider: people do edits following user contributions. I found your RfA following contribs of a user I know, and I would expect several people follow my edits and would thus follow my edits, too. Good luck next time, and once you address the issue I mentiond and Lysy (who supported you nonetheless... linked to), I think you may expect us to support you next time (I, for example, agree with your image stance :).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font
style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:::For the record I am not a member of the Lithuanian Wiki Project, athough all of its members are, I'm sure, delighted that you (and Halibutt) are two of its members. And I'm happy that you are keeping tabs on me and how I vote. This is very comforting. Since you are "an administrator open for recall", you'll be happy to know I'll be involved to help if you should offer yourself up for scrutiny and a new vote. ] 23:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:Piotrus, why don't you just say that you sent out these out of sight messages? Or that you did not. The question was asked above enough times already and your persistent not responding goes a long way towards the answer. Also, I can't believe that the diff Lysy linked to was his. Lysy does not spend enough time on WP to dig out the links from the remote past. Nor was he actively following the arbitration pages in the past...

:To answer your question on what brought many of those supporters, firstly the at the Russian board similarly to how the announcement of your ArbCom was made here not so long ago (and again I did not protest.) And as I said, campaigning to help someone is not the same as a campaign to derail someone, especially conducted out of sight.

:It does not take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that someone sent out a bunch of messages with "Take a look at this RfA! This is the same candidate who made post." Whoever sent out these messages with the link to Errabee's long time ago statement at the obscure (and rejected) ArbCom (and done so ''secretly'') displayed a text-book example of ''ungentlemanly conduct'', particularly when the author of the messages included the peculiar Lucpol into his subscription list. --] 21:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::So this was all about Piotrus all along (why am I not suprised). In that case, why did you not post your concerns on ], instead of polluting this important talk page? What does Poland have to do with the beef that you have against Piotrus?

::Or is this all about asking Piotrus leading questions on a highly visible page. Given your conduct, I do not believe you are entitled to any kind of an answer.

::Just out of curiosity, could you please cite the Misplaced Pages guideline which defines what ''ungentlemanly conduct'' is? Surely, if you are hounding a respected user on highly visible public boards, there is some important Misplaced Pages rule that he has broken and which you can cite! If not, then what you are doing is simply unconscionable. ] 21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Balcer, if I had been sure that "this is all about Piotrus all along" as you put it, I would not have taken it here indeed, but to his talk, as you suggest, or to his ongoing arbitration. However, taking it directly at one of the "Piotrus-only" related pages requires a more solid proof that it was Piotrus indeed. The proof is solid that ''someone'' has done it (as such "fluctuation" being without a direct reason is unconscionable).

As for your question on codifying the definition of the ''ungentlemanly conduct'' in the Misplaced Pages policy, I am afraid it is impossible and this is why it is not and will never be codified similarly to how the issues of ethics are not codified in any legal way in RL. People just know ethics (or they don't.)

Piotrus carefully avoided answering the question. It is up to users to draw the conclusions from, the facts presented and, perhaps, from this avoidance. As I said, I am not 100% sure and just a word here from whoever done it could clear this up to everyone's relief. --] 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

===Snowballing RfA (section break)===
I find this thread to be highly inappropriate on a Polish community bulletin board. It does ] a disservice even though he's no stranger to making accusations of ] toward editors of other nationalities . I cannot hold it against ] that in his view ] is "Low" on a Russian importance scale and "High" on a Polish importance scale, since Errabee isn't Polish, but I don't like the thought that I might belong to "those groups … fighting nationalist POV" (to put it in his own words ). I also resent the attempts at laying ] on any of the members of this Portal by his supporters. Choices we make individually during discussions are neither greater nor less valuable because of it. --] ] 19:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Poeticbent, with regards to votestacking: I assumed good faith first and simply mentioned he contacted 16 individual users with the danger of unbalancing the discussion. Only after another editor hinted at it, and the original editor continued contacting more individual users, I said it was close to votestacking, for which a case could certainly be made, since 19 of those 23 were of Turkish origin, which seems pretty unbalanced to me.
::::As for the Katyn massacre, let me make a parallel. I'm from the ], and the bombing of ] is still considered to be a very important event, as it was the event that caused us to surrender to Nazi Germany and thus marked the start of a 5-year occupation, that has caused deaths in almost all families. I lost my grandfather in the war. The results for Rotterdam last until today, as it is the only city in the Netherlands without a historic center. Nevertheless, I would still mark it as Low-importance for the Germany project, as the Netherlands were only occupied to provide a platform for the invasion of England. Now I understand that the Katyn massacre is very important for Poland, as the bombing of Rotterdam is to the Netherlands. But the Katyn massacre, how tragic it may be, is not that important for Russia, just as the bombing of Rotterdam isn't important to Germany. ]]] 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:Poeticbent, It is not my goal here to do any service (or disservice) to Errabee who can do very well without my services. I affirm the Wikipedians' right to make individual choices. I find alarming not the fact that people made the (tendentiously) informed choices but someone's campaigning to derail an RfA ''secretly''. Anyway, hopefully, enough is said indeed for people to draw sopme conclusions from this not so pleasant incident. --] 21:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
::And Poeticbent, regarding your belief that this discussion does not belong on a Polish community bulletin board, I have to disagree. There's nothing "holy" about this talk page, it's not the ], and all that has been stated here is something to think about. This is the purpose of the talk pages on WP (to iron out differences) and they are not the same as the project pages. ] 03:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not that interested in the past but in the future. There is a slim chance that seven prominent Polish editors independently became suddenly interested in an obscure RfA of a user who almost never edited Poland-related articles but a few weeks ago once said something negative about nationalism. We can assume AGF and find it pure coincidence. Anyway nobody was persecuted for off-wiki communications. Now lets assume that in a couple of months a Polish editor who never edited Russia-related articles but once said something negative about say Russian nationalism would suddenly get a number of Russian related oppose !votes. Then... It is contra-productive and plainly looks ugly. We can all assume AGF and do nothing we can also have some agreement and eliminate or reduce the problem. I am not sure I fully understand what Irpen is proposing but if it is workable I would rather discuss the solution then try to stonewall the problem. ] 12:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

:Why seven editors, maybe could you list them. I see six that would qualify, and one of them voted in favour. 106 vote were cast in total, so the impact of these few votes was negligible.
:Seriously, given that I am a participant of this board, should I from now on avoid all voting in RfA, or anxiously check before and after I vote whether other "Poles" voted, and if they have, write a detailed confession to justify the existence of any correlations that might result? Or maybe I should avoid voting if I see that even one "Pole" has already voted, as two "Poles" would already be suspicious. What is an acceptable number of "Poles" that can vote in anything before a detailed justfication must be provided for the "strange" correlation? Who decides which correlation is supicious and which one is not? I don't like where this is going. It looks more and more like an attempt to discourage a category of people from participating in voting altogether. ] 12:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::Don't forget to volunteer logs of all your IRC/IMs/emails communications for review, as well as to be on the safe side, start recording yourself 24h/7 so it can be proven beyond doubt you were not "canvassing" in offline.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

:You know, Alex, it is amusing that instead of dealing with the "editor who once said something ugly" you and Irpen are trying to silence editors that were offended. I have seen this with Irpen in the past and got used to it, but again I am disappointed seeing you following his suit. I can only hope that Errabee will discard such "defense", finally apologize for a comment he should have apologized back then in the first place and put this matter to rest (such an apology during RfA would have turned my vote to support, for example). But if you keep on accusing ''few'' members of this board as well as some others of cabalism here, don't expect to win any points. As far as I am concerned, this is EOT and I strongly recommend to all editors not to waste time on this off-topic thread here (and remember ] (no, that doesn't mean you, Alex, everyone is entitled to a mistake every now and often)).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

DFTT? Is this a personal attack? Please advise since you are an expert on those! But seriously, this is not about "defense of Errabee" who does not need any. This is about the revolting campaign to derail an RfA organized by someone along the secretive channels. Offended by his many months ago remark were not editor'''s''', otherwise ''they'' would have remembered such "offense". It was one editor who sent out these alerts with an obscure link thus inciting other users to oppose by invoking their national sensitivities.

BTW, Piotrus, did not you advocate publishing IRC logs? I am looking forward towards you publishing your part of the #en-admins, particularly on what the heck brought the channel's 24 hr regular David Gerard, who I never met before, to on the very next day after . You see, DG and myself have no common area to interact as I am spending time editing Misplaced Pages and he spends time chatting at IRC. Is it a coincidence that after your joining the IRC DG suddenly finds an obscure edit at the talk of the user who I advise to avoid revert warring with you? Also, derailing Errabee's RfA was widely discussed at the same channel as his run challenged the unencyclopedic position towards the fairuse that prevails among the channel's regulars. There may or may not be a direct cause and effect connection between the IRC discussion at the channel of Errabee's bid over the copyright issues and the alerting of several of the regulars of ''this'' board whose users don't share the IRC's copyright extremism. The users of this board are much more likely to take close to heart an obscure statement made many months ago about Polish nationalism in English Misplaced Pages. Someone provided them the and have done so secretly. This is what worries me most here. --] 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

==Cracow or Kraków?==
See discussion at ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

== Wilno ==

In ] "Wilno" is qualified as a ''historical'' name. It's a contemporary name in a language of a considerable minority. ] contains Lithuanian name, so by analogy ] should contain ''Wilno''.] 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:Good point. Do raise it either at ] or at ], however please read ] for some background: there are some editors very much opposed to any compromise and inclusion of the word ''Wilno'' in Vilnius (and honestly, I have spend hours trying to convince them, and I am not sure if I want to waste my time on this issue again).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:I would leave it alone. Sure, a concerted action by Polish editors could force that name in there, but what would be the point? It will be so much more satisfying when in a few years the Lithuanian editors put it in there on their own initiative (in line with the trend of cities celebrating their multi-ethnic heritage, rather than glorifing the boring homogeneity exalted by obsolete nationalism). ] 18:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
::Well said.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:::You've got to be kidding. What will even be more satisfying is when this group here who tell us the the German speaking residents of ] and ] were actually Poles, repatriated after ], acknowledge that a large component of the Polish speaking (and actually many trilingual speakers of the region, since many spoke fluent Russian too) inhabitants of the "Wilno" region from the same period, were Lithuanians. The great Lithuanian redeemer of Polish independence, Pilsudski, realized this fact when he issued his ] bilingually, after he tried to reunite the two nations again. Instead of it being irksome and denying it, you should pay homage to two of the greatest "Polish" leaders ] and ], and their heritage, and their contributions to Poland's positive history. Let's face it, up to now, after their contributions were supplanted by their succesors, the ]s and the ]s, there's not a lot of bragging that can be done. Think about it the next time you look at a statue of one of those two great Lithuanian statesmen that brought great honor to Poland's history. ] 04:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Hmm, I proposed that the naming issue be left to the Lithuanians, and you explode with all this vitriol. What gives? Are you secretly worried that my prediction will come true in the near future, and you will be left in an embittered minority even among your fellow Lithuanians? ] 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

==]==
Please add this page to your watchlist or check it every few days. Poland-related deletions often need comments.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

== Image copyright issue ==

We could use some more source information on ]. —] <sup>(])</sup> 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

== Ciepielów - citations needed ==

There has been a request to provide sources for the ] article. ] 11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:16, 14 November 2024

Welcome to the WikiProject Poland discussion! Shortcuts
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Thanks in advance.
Useful shortcuts:
Article news and procedural discussions (reviews, RfC, moves)
Articles undergoing deletion discussions
B-class project review requests
New articles
Articles with cleanup tags
Latest activity
This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 20 February 2012.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPoland
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland

Archives
Noticeboard archives (2005–2008):
WikiProject archives (2009–present):

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Szczechów

I have proposed that this article be deleted. I was not sure which process to follow, this one, or WP:AFD. Any comments would be welcome. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Dividing Warszawa Główna railway station into two or three articles

Hi, I wrote more in detail about my proposal in the article talk page, but in short, the name Warszawa Główna railway station throughout history was used fir three different stations, one in the 1930s/1940s, one in 1940s–1990s, and current one built in 2021. As such, I want to propose to creating separate articles for them.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Renaming the Alliance of Democrats (Poland) to Democratic Party (Poland)

Hi, I belive that the Alliance of Democrats (Poland) should be renamed to the "Democratic Party (Poland)". I think it would be a better translation of the name, and that current translation is wrong. Firstly, "alliance" means "sojusz", and not "stronictwo", which would be just "party". Word stronictwo, literally means 'a side of something', or 'a part of something', eg, a party. Futhermore, Polish title is in adjective form, so even "Democratic Alliance" would be more correct in this case. As such, "Alliance of Democrats" would rather be translation of "Sojusz Domokratów", than "Stronictwo Demokratyczne. What do you think? Artemis Andromeda (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Any people intrested in writing about WW2 in Warsaw, who would like to collaborate?

Hi, I like writing Warsaw-related articles, such as about its neighbourhoods and buildings. But, I'm not the best when it comes to writing about WW2, and it's kinda a big topic when it comes to this city. So, I thought maybe there would be people with better expertise on the WW2 in Warsaw, who would like to collaborate with me. For example, I would write most of the article about some neighbourhood, and you would help me cover the revenant WW2 events in the history section etc? Idk, I just thought I could try to ask here. Feel free to write to me if you are interested :) Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: