Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:45, 16 November 2005

---

Talk archives: Archive 1 (moved April 28, 2005)

---

Pila

Hi. Regarding the usage of German names for polish cities please check the outcome of a vote at Talk:Gdansk/Vote. Basically, if the location also has a german history, both names have to be mentioned at least once in the article. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 05:25, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the noticeboard, I have added my comments there, too. About the naming: Please understand, that many polish cities are still frequently known to english speakers under their german name. Hence, double naming DOES help users when they are looking for information. And yes, I am not messing around but try to enforce community consensus. Please respect the majority vote. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: If you are upset by the word German, I would have no problems with just Szczecin (Stettin). -- Chris 73 Talk 06:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Cross-Naming_General: for the vote (44-17 for) on this explicit situation. --Calton | Talk 06:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Editing errors

Please be careful when editing. This edit to WP:AN deleted the posts of several other users. Noel (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

No, some have already been restored, I am doing the others. Noel (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Glosowanie

Problem w tym glosowaniu jest nastepujacy:

Jak sam widzisz niektorzy nadinterpretuja wynik (specjalnie) i kazda swoja zmiane artykulu tlumacza "wynikiem glosowania" kazdy swoj revert (ktory lamie regule 3RR) "wynikiem glosowania".

Kolejna sprawa to same glosowanie, nie bylo ani jednego podobnego glosowania w sprawie innych miast na wikipedii, nie wiem dlaczego dopuszczono do wyjatku...

Glosowanie organizowala ta sama osoba ktora wykluczala glosy (jesli byly za Gdanskiem) a nie wykluczala glosow ktore byly za Danzingiem. Wymienilem jeden przyklad na stronie dyskusyjnej Gdanska i Hallibutt pare na stronie dyskusyjnej "template" - i przypuszczam ze tego by bylo wiecej. Ta sama osoba ignorowala protesty wielu osob gdy glosowanie sie skonczylo.

Tak w ogole nie istnieje zadna regula ktora mowi ze uzytkownicy, powiedzmy ponizej 20 editow, nie moga brac udzialu w glosowaniu - wiec ta pewna osoba poprostu sobie wybierala kogo glos zaliczyc kogo nie.

Jednym slowem wyniki glosowania byly sfalszowane. Na korzysc pro-niemieckiego punktu widzenia.

A chyba najbardziej parszywe jest to, ze ci ktorzy manipulowali glosowaniem i naciagaja jego wynik, obecnie przedstawiaja tych ktorzy je kwestionuja jako buntownikow - a siebie samych jako obroncow regul i porzadku na wikipedii. (spontanicznie mi to przypomina wybory na Bialorusi) --Witkacy 00:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Otóż to, Panowie. Jasio K. sprawia wrażenie sensownego faceta i chyba można z nim dojść do jakiegoś porozumienia. Poczekajmy, zobaczymy co wyniknie z tej dyskusji. Na razie zebraliśmy dowód fałszerstwa i kilka mocnych argumentów. Chyba dobrze by było na którejś ze stron zreasumować całą sprawę, najlepiej napisać w punktach i z detalami to, co Witkacy napisał powyżej. Im więcej konkretów i faktów tym lepiej. Halibutt 12:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Problem z Jasiem jest ze nie akceptuje prostych faktow i za wszelka cene broni ostatniego przegiecia Krzysia&Co - placze sie rowniez w swoich wypowiedziach raz mowi ze nie bylo uzgodnione dodawanie wszedzie niemieckich nazw, na innej stronie dyskusyjnej (dzien pozniej) sadzi cos innego. Raz mowi ze w zasadzie nie istnieje zadne prawo ktore mowi ze mozna wykluczac glosy (w wyniku malej ilosci editow), a zaraz potem znajduje jakias wzmianke ktora wogole tego nie dotyczy i uwaza ze glosy zostaly wykluczone zgodnie z oficjalnym prawem wikipedii...

Co do zresumowania calej sprawy na jednej stronie - masz racje, trzeba stworzyc jakas i na niej wymienic przejzyscie wszystkie argumenty.--Witkacy 14:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Molotov line

Added information about fortifications in Lithuania as well a link to pictures, as you asked. And no I am not angry on you lol. DeirYassin 15:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Zivinbudas

Mam faceta serdecznie dość. Wszczynam przeciw niemu ArbCom, dołączysz? Halibutt 23:33, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Zacząłem przygotowywać wstępny szkic WP:ArbReq na User:Halibutt/Zivinbudas. Czy mógłbyś go przejrzeć? Na razie jest tam tylko moje oświadczenie, wkrótce dodam resztę. Halibutt 23:58, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, dopisałem. Mógłbyś to przejrzeć jeszcze raz i dokonać poprawek / rozszerzyć? Halibutt 00:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Też się pewnie przyłączy, dlatego na razie czekam. Do tego dojdzie pewnie kilka osób z Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Zivinbudas, które powiadomię jutro z rana. Ciekaw jestem czy można się dołączyć do już rozpoczętej sprawy, czy też wszystkie strony muszą być zadeklarowane od razu... Halibutt 00:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedians' notice board

• ]

zapraszam.--Witkacy 13:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Zivinbudas

I have now officially filed an arbitration request against User:Zivinbudas. Since you were one of the parties disputing his behaviour, please join the WP:RfA discussion. Halibutt 04:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 10:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discution and vote about the Polish and Lithuanian city names

http://en.wikipedia.org/Naming_conventions/Vote_on_city_naming , tell your opinion on the matter DeirYassin 22:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nobody anyhow dispute dthe choices I suggested in Talk:Goldap nor told their opinion though. I don't know where exactly I should have started such preparation of choices. If you have more experience on this matter, you might take over and edit what is needed to be edited. The separate discution on this and/or vote is needed however because current discutions on many places leads nowhere and also having to repeat same arguements to different people on different cities' talk pages is kinda useless. DeirYassin 22:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for reverts done at that page I guess more people related to this visists that page (Goldap) - at least you do, also Halibutt, Zivinbudas, me, probably some more of those involved. This is one of actually related pages, while both Lithuania and Poland pages aren't directly related and also posting on one of them would be non-neutral. Therefeore, separate page is needed IMO, which I created and informed all people related to the issue. I start to loose hope that on this issue it is possible to reach any peaceful solution as there are just too many nationalists with their own interests+POV and, unfortunately, common people from other parts of the world knows too little about the topic to be able to mediate more. DeirYassin 23:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gdańsk i inne takie

Balcerze, masz całkowitą słuszność ale... no właśnie, ale. Po pierwsze, akcje "pewnych czynników" nie potrzebują legitymizacji. Mają pełne poparcie administratorów, choć są w sposób oczywisty nadużyciem wyniku głosowania. Nie są zgodne z jego duchem, ale z literą - jak najbardziej. Próbowaliśmy dojść do jakiejś ugody na odpowiednich stronach dyskusji, jednak osoby pokroju Chrisa Drei und Siebzig skutecznie całą rzecz zbojkotowały i, wykorzystując swoje przywileje, wcisnęły "cross-naming" gdziekolwiek się tylko dało, wszystko jedno czy miało to sens czy nie. Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, Donald Tusk i Amber mogą być świetnym przykładem.

Skoro więc akcje User:Chris 73 mają pełne poparcie (między innymi User:John Kenney) i są uważane za zgodne z zasadami, to w czym ja tym zasadom uchybiam? Dlaczego nie mam prawa egzekwować wyników głosowania równie bezwzględnie co inni? I dlaczego mam się godzić na podwójne standardy. Ten miecz ma dwa ostrza i chyba dopiero teraz wszyscy sobie to uświadomili. Dlatego będę kontynuował egzekwowanie używania podwójnego nazewnictwa w odniesieniu do Drezna, które - było nie było - było przez prawie wiek polską stolicą. Jeśli ktoś zdecyduje się na powtórzenie glosowania, tym razem bez nadużyć i bez takich kwiatków - będę bardzo zadowolony. A na razie - wracam do revertowania, do którego ostatnie głosowanie dało mi pełne prawo. Halibutt 07:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Odpowiem krótko tutaj bo twoja strona dyskusji jest już zawalona. Rozumiem twoje racje, ale jednak jest dla mnie jasne że twoje działania należą bezdyskusyjnie do kategorii WP Point. Co więcej, czy nie boisz się że twoje działania na stronach niemieckich miast przyciągna na strony miast polskich więcej proniemieckich użytkowników gotowych do udziału w rewertowych wojenkach? Mamy już wystarczająco dużo problemów z kilkoma rewizjonistami, co będzie jeśli będzie ich kilkunastu albo jeszcze więcej? Balcer 19:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wybacz, nie zauważyłem wcześniej Twojego komentarza. Po pierwsze, ja naprawdę nie chciałem niczego nikomu udowodnić. Jeśli już, to starałem się to zrobić na Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion i na stronie dyskusji samego szablonu, ale tam mi się najwyraźniej nie udało, bo i Jasio i Krzysio dyskusję po prostu zaczęli ignorować. Po z górą miesiącu po prostu zacząłem wymagać stosowania zasad we wszystkich przypadkach. I tyle. Jeśli ustalono jakieś zasady i nie ma woli ich zmiany, to należy się zacząć do nich stosować. I tyle.

A co do rewizjonistów - a co za różnica czy będzie ich siedmiu czy dziesięciu? Halibutt 03:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Vote clarification proposal

Hi Balcer. Thanks for your request on my talk page. Recently the time I have for Misplaced Pages has varied a lot depending on other things in my life, and i did not always have time to read all comments on Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. I am sorry about that.

• Users are advised to use common sense when applying the results of this vote. The use of the literal interpretation of the vote to disrupt Misplaced Pages and start revert wars is strongly discouraged. This sounds good to me. I doubt it would make a difference in the editing behavior, but I would feel comfortable in adding it. I actually also think we may not even need a vote to add this, but just add it to the summary. Other admins input on this would be appreciated.
• The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, in articles relevant to this shared history the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). This one i am not convinced about. The modification can also be interpreted very widely. However, I think the goal is not to have historic names listed in articles, but rather alternative names by which the place is known in english (See comment by Jnc). Hence the double naming is useful for english language users of Misplaced Pages, and a large majority supported the double naming on the vote. I think double naming is not needed for soccer teams, but for the suburbs of Szczecin it is helpful to know that they are in Szczecin (Stettin).

Personally, I don't really care what the place is called, but I get pissed off if other users completely ignore any voting consensus and just remove any information they do not like (, , , there are more but I have no time checking all of their edits.). Also, I do not care if it is (German: Stettin) or just (Stettin). Hope this answers your questions, and sorry for the current trouble. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

In this context, I think it's worth observing that it took me quite a long time after Lech Walesa appeared in the news until I finally realized that this place "Gdansk" they were talking about was the same city I knew of (from my history books, especially the start of WWII) as Danzig! I think we ought to keep in mind that the average reader is a UK/US/Australian/etc citizen who's probably not up on the details of Baltic history. I mean, I'm a considerably-better-than-average knowledgable person, and it took me a while to make the connection! Noel (talk) 19:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand the feelings of English-speaking users who don't readily make the connection between Gdansk and Danzig. However, I also understand the feelings of some Polish users who feel, shall we say, a certain unease when the German name is displayed too prominently, even in obscure articles which really do not seem very relevant to shared Polish/German history. To them this may smack of attempts at historical revisionism and reviving old border claims. The way to reconcile these two opposing viewpoints is of course to compromise, include the German name prominently in the headers of articles about cities, but not insisting on using the bilingual form everywhere in Misplaced Pages. Balcer 20:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Balcer - I mostly agree with your proposal, but I think that, given Halibutt's behavior, we need to modify the "share a history" bit, as well. As it is, it is too vague, and allows Halibutt to claim that Dresden "shares a history" because Saxony and Poland were in personal union in the 18th century, or that Mainz qualifies because it had a substantial Polish diaspora and had Polish troops stationed there during the Napoleonic wars. This is on the face of it absurd, but I'd like to change the wording to make such casuistry impossible. john k 17:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know there is probably a German equivalent to Hailbutt's Polish additions, but as the saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right". We need to stop and censure people on both sides with regards to violating the letter and/or spirit of the Gdansk agreement. I am on the German side of this only because those are the articles I edit and watch, and we have plenty of edit wars without people from other edit wars coming in and adding to it. DirectorStratton 18:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Poland.gov.pl

Zobacz:

"Minister Spraw Zagranicznych posiada pełne i nieograniczone autorskie prawa majątkowe do materiałów promocyjnych umieszczonych na stronie www.poland.gov.pl. we wszystkich wersjach językowych w szczególności do: logotypów, tekstów, zdjęć, tabeli i wykresów na wszelkich polach eksploatacji w nieograniczonej liczbie nadań. Materiały te mogą być wykorzystywane do celów promocji Polski zgodnych z kierunkami polskiej polityki zagranicznej przez instytucje rządowe i pozarządowe. Materiały te nie mogą być wykorzystywane przez polskie i zagraniczne osoby prawne i fizyczne dla celów osiagania korzyści majątkowych."

Nie moga byc uzyte w celu osiagniecia korzysci majatkowych - wikipedia jest niekomercyjna encyklopedia, wiec materialy z tej strony moga byc uzywane (moim zdaniem). Z czasem i tak kazdy artykul sie troche zmienia, ktos cos doda, przepisze itd. Tutaj mamy przypadek uzycia materialow w celu edukacyjnym wiec raczej nasz minister spraw zagranicznych nie mialby nic przeciwko. Co do notki, wstawiajac tekst dodalem link strony do "komentarza" - wydaje mi sie ze rzadko ktos uzywa material z wikipedii w celach komercyjnych, a jesli juz to napewno dokladnie sprawdza skad owy material pochodzi--Witkacy 10:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ale zwroc uwage ze wszystkie obrazki "fair-use" sa rowniez na tym mirrorze - chodz co poniektore z nich maja zaostrzone prawa autorskie, jak np loga firm. A artykul Dabrowskiego zostal specjalnie stworzony "do promocji historii Polski" za pieniadze podatnikow.--Witkacy 15:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No tak, slyszalem ze z obrazkami "fair-use" sa problemy i rozne opinie na temat ich uzywania. Nie mniej jednak, uwazam ze artykul ze strony panstwowej, ktora pozwala na uzywanie materialu, moze spokojnie istniec na Wikipedii :)--Witkacy 15:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Respect

I just thought I stop by to say that appreciate your attempts to cool off some heads Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Minsk_i_Kij.F3w and other talk and user:talk pages. I made similar calls trying to convince the editors upset by recent DE/PL and PL/LT name conflicts, as well as by the Russian name in Kiev article, to help improve the city history sections instead of making a WP:Point. I think the project Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions/Vote on city naming may help resolve such problems in the future and I will also try to come up with some ideas there. Thanks again! Do widzenia, -Irpen 00:13, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Suburbs

Thanks for your input on the Stettin suburbs. I am perfectly fine with your solution on Szczecin-Bukowo. Hope, Witkacy agrees, too. -- Chris 73 Talk 18:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in updating all the suburbs. I greatly appreciate it. These places got quite a bit of wild editing in the last few days, hopefully your solution is acceptable to all. -- Chris 73 Talk 19:12, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

That would be Szczecin-Wielgowo->Stettin-Augustwalde and Szczecin-Klucz -> Stettin-Klütz . I would do the edits, but I don't want to fuel the fire. Can you do these, too? Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 20:05, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Survey guidelines fixing

So that the Gdansk/Vote horror never repeats itself :) Please see the proposal at my userspace, it is an updated version of Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. After I hear (or not) and incorporate comments from you and several other users I know are interested in fixing this, I will officialy move this to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) and I would like you to be one of the co-signatures of the proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the comments, I tried to incorporate them into the final version. See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Bad faith

I appreciate your translation work Balcer, but I do not appreciate being called paranoid. Logolist was refering to a topic I brought up, logolist knows I don't speak Polish, yet logolist posted a response about a topic I brought up in Polish. If logolist wanted me to know what was being said he would have posted in English or provided a translation and he did not. That sir is fact, not paranoia. Excluding someone already discussing a topic, is not only rude, but in bad faith. I don't go around demanding translations of texts on talk pages, but I do insist on English being used in public spaces on the English wikipedia. As for describing people as paranoid, such statements are largely, viewed as personal attacks, I would urge caution in making such statemnets in the future, you will find not all wikipedians are as understanding as I. As for the tranlation, I thank you for the offer, but as I'm sure you now know, it is no longer necessary. -JCarriker 16:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Stress and frustration often make people say things that they don't mean. It's part of being human. :) I have something of an effort going to request that editors of the Polish collab use English, even in responding to posts in Polish. Its a polite way of encouraging the others to join in, while mainting good faith. It also doesn't require translation. -JCarriker 16:27, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Moving Polish discussion

Yes, by e-mail. You could always set up another account, I have a rather good free account at yahoo.com that seperate spam into a seperate folder. There is ofcourse also the option of a sister project on pl.wikipedia.org which is about collaboration between pl and en on polish topics. -JCarriker 17:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misread what you said. I thought were talking about my suggestions on Polish Collab. However one of my suggestions would need a workable account. Sorry for the confusion. -JCarriker 17:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposals for moving the discussion? Perhaps we should contiue the conversation on IRC? -JCarriker 17:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I will no longer be going out of my way to help the Polish community here. I'm tired of working in a simi-hostile enviorment. I'll still be available for individual Polish friends if they need me, or invite me to a page. Good luck. -JCarriker 10:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tnx, plz vote again :)

Renomination: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/History of Poland (1945-1989). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 4 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiportal/Ukraine

A project Misplaced Pages:Wikiportal/Ukraine created by several editors is now live. I am sure this topic is of interest to you. Cheers, --Irpen July 8, 2005 22:06 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to Zivinbudas. He has been banned from Misplaced Pages for one year. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

the nonsense continues

(spamming you, since you also participated in the discussion:) The deleted-per-VfD Polish Wikipedians' Black Book, which was resurrected at User:Halibutt/Black Book has, since Jimbo Wales commented on the first resurrection's talk page, been resurrected as User:Halibutt/Black book. Despite my request for clarification on the talk page there, I have received nothing but accusations of vandalism from a troll who has since been banned for a week for repeated personal attacks (against me and others). Any ideas for how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. Tomer 04:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Allies of WWII

A long discussion has just ended concerning that article and how to mention the relationship between Germany and USSR in it. Some kind of compromise has been reached. Therefore, please, think carefully before introducing new changes, so that the battle does not start again.

Ok, I didn't know about that.

I reverted your edit because I find it reflects the standard Soviet line on the subject which has not been accepted by mainstream historiography. The details of the negotiations between France and Britain on one side and the Soviet Union on the other in the summer of 1939 are complicated, but to lay all the blame for their failure on Western governments is an exaggeration. Furthermore, how can you say that the Soviet Union was constrained by Germany in 1939. The USSR then was the largest country in the world and had the largest army in the world.

It was not the largest country in the world. Churchill's empire was much larger. And its army was not the largest, let alone most efficient.

You are right of course, 2nd largest country then. Keep in mind though that many components of the British Empire were more of a net burden than an asset. I did not say the USSR had the most efficient army, but I am pretty sure it had the largest, especially when mobilized (which of course it would be in the event of a war). We have to keep in mind that in 1939 the German army also suffered from certain deficiencies, which it corrected by practicing in Poland and France. Balcer 15:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There was no prospect of an immediate German invasion, as Hitler first had to conquer Poland and then France before he could move against the Soviet Union. Balcer 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

As for "no prospect of immediate German invasion", this is ridiculous. Hitler clearly outlined his plans on Russia in the Mein Kampf. --Ghirlandajo 14:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

By immediate I mean within the next 12 months, say. Of course in the longer term Hitler definitely wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. But to do that he had to first remove the buffer states (Poland etc.) and establish a common border with the Soviet Union, and then defeat France so that his rear would be secured. The pact with Stalin allowed him to do precisely that. Balcer 15:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes

The debate has restarted, your input would be much appreciated, as the discussed propoasal is the one incorporating your previous suggestions and comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions/Geographic names

I think there is quite a good discussion with an excellent proposal being hammered out by several users at Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names and its talk. The latest version is very close to what I would like to see as a Misplaced Pages policy and, if implemented, it would also help to keep certain behaviours of certain users at bay. Your input is welcome of course. --Irpen 08:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nominacja na admina

Nie myslales o tym kiedys? Nie widzialem ci nigdy w zadnym revert warze, wiec moralnie sie klasyfikujesz, a adminski status daje kilka fajnych narzedzi (rollback, view deleted, (un)delete, (un)protect, (un)block) - przydaja sie od czasu do czasu. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Czego brakuje ci w ilosci, nadrabiasz jakoscia - ale nie bede cie zmuszal. Tymczasem zerknij na Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)