Misplaced Pages

User talk:Radomil

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 23 November 2008 (→Re:Polish Air Force). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:41, 23 November 2008 by Piotrus (talk | contribs) (→Re:Polish Air Force)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archive 1

Poprawione

Tylko jedno słówko :) Warto też kopiować takie prośby na WP:PWNB, im wiecej sie zainteresuje tym lepiej :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Greater Poland Uprising (1806)

Updated DYK query On 15 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Greater Poland Uprising (1806), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 04:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Teatr Wielki

I believe it is usual to use a comma instead of "in" for page titles. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC) OK I will fix the links. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 28 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Air Force of the Polish Army, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 03:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Air Force of the Polish Army

The sentence about the 103rd Squadron has long since been rewritten by Poeticbent.

I knew that German (at least) uses British-style dates, and I read somewhere (but I can't find it now) that Misplaced Pages prefers British English for articles about Europe, presumably because Europeans are more familiar with British English than American English. The British-style dates were changed to U.S.-style dates by Poeticbent, not me, and it doesn't matter if people use date preferences.

Another thing I read somewhere that I can't find now, is that there are two styles of user page conversation on Misplaced Pages. The reason to reply on one's own page is to allow the complete conversation to be read by others without switching back and forth. If you look at any long user talk page, you can normally find some replies from the page's owner on his own user talk page. Both conversation styles can be accommodated by temporarily putting a user talk page on your Misplaced Pages:Watchlist when you leave a message. Art LaPella 17:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some people (I think a minority) prefer answers on their own user talk page, but don't say it's because you get a notification - unless you understand that putting the other person's user page on your watch list will also give you a less immediate notification. Art LaPella 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also an administrator, although I do more editing than discussion compared to other administrators. I don't keep track of old items on my watchlist - I unwatch them when someone edits them if the issue is no longer current, and if you look at random user talk pages you'll see how popular that is. Whatever. Art LaPella 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a Polish chessboard? It isn't on English Misplaced Pages, and I don't think it's even on Google. The Google hits confuse chessboards from Poland with polishing a chessboard. The chessboards that do come from Poland look like American chessboards, 8x8 not 2x2 as in the picture.

The Transformation section seems disproportional to the rest of the article. I would think the most important facts about a military organization would be a description of its battles and a description of its capability if ordered into another war, not such a long list of demobilized organizations. Art LaPella 21:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Summary style says: "In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page" with a link to the subtopic's own page. Art LaPella 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but at least I wouldn't make the section any longer without splitting it off into another article. Art LaPella 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Czemu nie przetłumaczysz artykułu na polski?

Poznań

Strona o Poznaniu jest dosyć uboga w zdjęcia. Może dobrze byłoby rozpatrzyć tę kwestię...??? Kajzderski

Polish Land Forces

thanks for the information you provided on my talkpage. I left the regional names given to the units out, as I did not know their English name most of the time and there isn't much space in the graphic to include these names. However where if you are willing to help- You can find the graphic here and I have the following questions:

  • First I have some questions about units that I already was able to include in the graphic:
    • Is "Batalionu Piechoty Zmotoryzowanej" correctly translated as “Motorized Battalion”?  Done
    • What are: "kompania łączności", "kompania ochrony i regulacji ruchu", "kompania wsparcia".
    • I translated “Batalion Powietrznodesantowy” as Paratrooper Battalion. Correct?  Done
    • 10th Logistics Brigade:  Done
      • What does “składowania” mean?  Done
      • What does “ewakuacji sprzętu” mean?  Done
    • 23 Śląska Brygada Artylerii under the link "Struktura BA" you will find the Brigades units: What does “dra” mean? I made a Rocket Artillery Group of it…  Done
    • I translated “Pułk Samochodowy” as Transport Regiment.  Done
    • I translated “Pułk Ochrony” as Protection Battalion.  Done
    • Does “batalionów łączności” mean “Signal Battalion”?  Done
  • Secondly: there is a long list of regiments and battalions listed in the Polish Misplaced Pages article about the Polish Land Forces. I tried to translate these units, but I do not know where they belong to. Which command is responsible for these units and what is the English translation for them?
    • Samodzielne pułki
      • 14 Suwalski Pułk Artylerii Przeciwpancernej (Suwałki) = 14th Anti-Tank Rgt.
      • 4 Pułk Przeciwlotniczy (Czerwieńsk) = 4th Air Defence Rgt.
      • 8 Koszaliński Pułk Przeciwlotniczy (Koszalin) = 8th Air Defence Rgt
      • 1 Dębliński Pułk Drogowo-Mostowy (Dęblin) - jednostka Pomorskiego OW = ???
      • 2 Inowrocławski Pułk Komunikacyjny (Inowrocław) = 2nd Signals or PsyOps Rgt.?
      • 3 Włocławski Pułk Drogowo-Mostowy (Włocławek) - jednostka Śląskiego OW = ???
      • 5 Pułk Inżynieryjny (Szczecin) = ???
      • 9 Pułk Dowodzenia(Białobrzegi) = 9th Command Btn.
      • 49 Pułk Śmigłowców Bojowych (Pruszcz Gdański) = ???
      • 56 Kujawski Pułk Śmigłowców Bojowych (Inowrocław) = ???
      • 1 Pułk Specjalny Komandosów (Lubliniec) = 1st Special Forces Rgt.
      • 2 Hrubieszowski Pułk Rozpoznawczy (Hrubieszów) = 2nd Reconnaissance Rgt. – is this a Special Forces unit?
      • 9 Warmiński Pułk Rozpoznawczy (Lidzbark Warmiński) = 9th Reconnaissance Rgt. – is this a Special Forces unit?
      • 4 Pułk Chemiczny (Brodnica) = NBC Rgt.
    • Samodzielne bataliony i kompanie
      • 100 Batalion Łączności (Szczecin) – jednostka Międzynarodowego Korpusu Północ-Wschód = 100th Signals Btn.
      • 8 Batalion Walki Radioelektronicznej (Grudziądz) = 8th Signals Btn.
      • 11 Batalion Walki Radioelektronicznej (Legnica) = 11th Signals Btn.
      • 5 Batalion Chemiczny (Tarnowskie Góry) = 5th NBC Btn.
      • 1 Batalion Zabezpieczenia Dowództwa Wojsk Lądowych (Warszawa) = ???
      • 1 Kujawsko-Pomorski Batalion Zabezpieczenia Okręgu Wojskowego (Bydgoszcz) = ???
      • 2 Batalion Dowodzenia Okręgu Wojskowego (Wrocław) = 2nd Command Btn. ??
      • 28 Batalion Dowozu Amunicji = 28 Ammunition Btn.
      • 3 bataliony remontowe (52, 55, 112) = Maintenance Btn.
      • 8 batalionów zaopatrzenia (75, 82, 86, 91, 95, 97, 107, 122) = Supply Btn.
      • 6 batalionów ratownictwa inżynieryjnego (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) = ???
      • ponadto m. in. 2 kompanie kontroli ruchu 2 kompanie transportu ciężkiego itp. = ???
  • Third: These are the Brigades of which I could not find any information and therefore they are only in the graphic with the Brigade icon, but all their units are missing- if you or someone you know has information about these brigades, please let me know it.

Can you help? thanks, --noclador 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Radomil, thanks for your answers- I already updated the graphic :-) --noclador 09:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with all the translations. I'll wait 2-3 days with updating the graphic, in the hope that you might be able to find out, if these units are all directly under the Land Forces Command or other commands. The units that are under command of the Silesian and Pommeranian Military District I will add tonight. --noclador 09:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a link to the units of the Silesian Military district- could you have alook and try to find out, what the units of the 10 Logistic Brigade are? http://www.sow.mil.pl/index.php?id=jednostki#naglowek --noclador 06:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I just finished to update the graphic. As for the 10th LogisticsBrigade, I moved some of the units that are supposedly part of the Silesian Military district into the 10th Logistics Brigade- the reason: the 1stLogistic Brigade has the same kind and number of units as the Silesian Military district and I think it is more logical that these units have in the meantime be moved under command of the 10 Log. Brig... I also included all the Regiments and Battalions that are under direct command of the Land Forces. The new graphic is now up: commons:Image:Poland Land Forces.png --noclador 08:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not delete content from pages on Misplaced Pages as you did to Polish Air Force article in this edit. Your edit do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. --Eurocopter tigre 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Marcin Dunin

That is a wonderful picture of the sculpture, thank you for uploading it! Do you by any chance have a closer view of the face of the sculpture? Thank you, Elonka Dunin.  :) --Elonka 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a great addition to Misplaced Pages, and I have several family members in the U.S. who will be interested in seeing it. Also, considering the chaos of my current RfA, it's actually a useful thing for me to look at. If I'm pondering the answer to a question, I can look at the picture, and think, "How would my ancestors have handled this?"  :) So again, thanks. --Elonka 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Polish Marines

I did not actually know when I created this article. I have been intending to do some research around it but have not yet found time to do so. I created this article when I noticed the term 'Polish Marines' was used in the Polish Navy article. --Hydraton31 09:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

July 15th DYK

Updated DYK query On 15 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marcin Dunin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c  04:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KKS_Lech_Poznań.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:KKS_Lech_Poznań.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigrTex 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

DYKi

Ostatnio mniej sledze nowe artykuly; polecam reklamowac takie jak Tramways in Poznań na Template talk:Did you know.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Odp: Polskie flagi

We wprowadzeniu do List of Polish flags zaznaczyłem, że lista obejmuje tylko flagi zdefiniowane przez polskie prawo na poziomie państwowym, czyli ustawy bądź rozporządzenia ("flags defined by Polish national law, either through an act of parliament or a ministerial ordinance"). A zatem nie obejmuje ona ani flag ustalonych przez samorządy, ani przez stowarzyszenia. Ponieważ bandery jachtowe są obecnie zdefiniowane tylko przez statuty stowarzyszeń żeglarskich, to uważam, że nie ma na nie miejsca w tym artykule. — Kpalion 14:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles wanted

greg park avenue (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Polish Air Force

bylo by milo gdybys skonczyl odwracac artykul Polish Air Force do poprzedniego, nieaktualnego stanu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryboy (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

question about Image:MiG-21 RB6.jpg

Hi, there is an intriguing insignia on the fuselage near the nose (black, with wings). Do you know more about it? The MiG-21 appears to be non-operational. Is it in a museum or a park? --Jtir (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is MiG-21PFM #4106 of Polish Air Force with insignia of 10th Fighter Reg. from Łask, near Łódź (not existing anymore, replaced on 1 Jan 2001 by 10th Tactical Sqn. and 32nd AF Base) currently on display in Museum of Armament (Muzeum Uzbrojenia) in Fort Winiary (better known as Cytedela) in Poznań, Poland. Radomil talk 11:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ach, and insignia - this is black dragon - emblem of 1st Flight of 10th Fighter Reg. Radomil talk 12:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I have added your detailed description to your image on Commons. I did some copyediting, but I'm not an aviation or military specialist, so my usage may not be quite right. What is the Polish for "black dragon emblem"? A closeup might be a nice addition to Polish Air Force. There appears to be a square panel obscuring part of the emblem. Do know what that is? --Jtir (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional details. Now I see that the "panel" is part of the insignia. --Jtir (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Marcin Dunin

Hello Radomil, I edited about 2 hours to comment your deletion of German place names in this article -which I reverted. The edits are lost. To make it short: Good luck to change Rome to Rzym, and so on. Remember, we are in 2007, not in 1945. Gerhard51 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems you like to have an edit war. Gerhard51 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sword of Saint Peter

Na moje oko trzeba by rozbudowac mniej wiecej dwukrotnie do DYKa, na razie to stub.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

pl:Twierdza Poznań

Wypadałoby choć stubnąć... :) Ostatnio napisałem Toruń Fortress i na razie mi o fortyfikacjach pisac sie nie chce... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

your edits on Pomeranian names

Please note that the duchy of Pomerania joined in to Saxony in 1164 and into the HRE in 1181, German settlement and adapting German law / language / culture followed thereon (see eg Ostsiedlung). Please note that the Pomeranian_language (East Pom) and Polabian dialects (West Pom) used before (Low) German was introduced are not equal to modern Polish, though related.

Please stop editwars on issues you obviously have not investigated deeply enough. If you want to discuss any specific matter you are welcome. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

With Brandenburg there was always struggling and warfare as Brandenburg sought to integrate the duchy of Pomerania within its realm, she also claimed Pomerania inheritance as a whole and Uckermark in specific throughout history - despite she would not succeed getting the whole duchy of Pom until the last Griffin died heirless, Brandenburg eg advanced into and temporarily incorporatet Stargard and (most of) Uckermark. There were a lot of treaties of Pomeranian dukes against Brandenburg or other threatening neighbors like Mecklenburg. The HRE's central authority most of the time was very limited, armed and diplomatic conflicts between the HRE's states/duchies/principalities were common until Prussia succeeded to create a much or less unified centralistic Germany under its hegemony in late modern times.
But in "our" case, alliances as the one you mentioned are not suitable for determing the language used in the duchy. Please, don't have your editwar continued as it really makes no sense to deny historical facts that can be studied with a low amount of time and means. Please inform yourself before further false edits are made.
Maybe you are confusing the duchy of Pom with Pomerelia? I really don't know what else I can do to get you study a bit of Pomeranian history which would prevent you from making false edits. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't get the point. Just because HRE was not a nation state in modern sense it does not mean that the duchy of Pomerania was not German. The duchy joined in as a Slavic one, yes, but the dukes themselves turned the duchy into a German one just thereafter. You need to read about Pomeranian history, I'm getting tired of stating what you could easily know by yourself if you would just start to inform yourself before starting a silly edit war. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a comment on talk:Dukes_of_Pomerania, you are invited to post further arguments there. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Talk:Dukes of Pomerania discussion is not intended to change WP:NCGN but to clarify the historical content and the English usage to those who are not comfortable with it. This discussion is not a poll to actually change the rules, so don't expect this to happen. If you want to establish a new naming rule, you need to start a poll on the WP:NCGN talk page. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please. I gave you the historical content, I gave you the links to the respective wiki rules. This is not about you vs me or PL vs DE, but simply about the English use of historical names in wiki. I will again give you the respective links. Let's make great articles and not have a silly war because of a misunderstanding.

WP:NCGN

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
  • For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
  • For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
  • In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
  • In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
  • For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
  • Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
  • Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Misplaced Pages:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Enforcement

Skäpperöd (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


I am glad you finally read some of the above links.

WP:NCGN:In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." Now, as the duchy does not exist anymore, it does not have any modern name. Yet, because the city the duchy took its specifying name from changed its name after WWII, the new name, although not really related to the duchy, might be given in parentheses for orientation.

Gdansk vote says, in case of cities, we should use the name of the respective time span we are in first and the other name in parentheses.

You might want to consult an admin if you have trouble applying the rules, or you might start a campaign to change these rules. Be aware that persistent edits against Gdansk vote consensus are treated alike vandalism (see above enforcement link).

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Stettin was the only name of the city before 1945. Before 45, there was no double naming or a preference or anything because only one name existed. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Gdansk vote: Be aware that persistent edits against Gdansk vote consensus are treated alike vandalism (see above enforcement link in the above Gdansk vote template).

3RR Please read about 3RR-rule. You violated that rule already and can easily get blocked. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Skäpperöd (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jak Czarniecki do Poznania...

Cześć, wiem, że czas reakcji mam dosyć długi, ale to dlatego, że nie bardzo mogę dojść do ładu z tym, jak to właściwie było z tym Czarnieckim. Nie mam pod ręką dobrych źródeł drukowanych na ten temat, a szperając po Internecie, im bardziej się w to zagłębiam, tym bardziej się to wszystko nie trzyma kupy i nie wiem, czy to Wybicki coś pokręcił, czy też mnie brakuje informacji.

Zacznijmy od "wracania się przez morze". Z tego, co wiem, to jedyna morska przygoda Czarnieckiego polegała na sforsowaniu cieśniny o szerokości 400-500 m oddzielającej wysepkę Als od stałego lądu Jutlandii. Zdobywszy zamek Sønderborg w grudniu 1658 r., Czarniecki wrócił na stały ląd, aby kontynuować wyzwalanie Danii (a nie Polski) z rąk szwedzkich. Czarniecki wrócił do Polski dopiero we wrześniu 1659 r.

Co do bytności hetmana w Poznaniu, to wiadomo mi tylko o naradzie wojennej, którą król Jan Kazimierz odbył z Czarnieckim i innymi dowódcami na poznańskim Zamku Królewskim 26 listopada 1657 r. Ale w takim razie Czarniecki nie mógł się wracać do Poznania, bo był tam jeszcze przed wyprawą do Danii. I nie było to "po szwedzkim rozbiorze", bo Potop jeszcze wtedy trwał. Może, jako poznaniak, wiesz o jakimś innym pobycie Czarnieckiego w Poznaniu, już po jego powrocie z Danii? Choć nawet jeśli wracał jeszcze do Poznania, to nie wiem, przed kim miałby wtedy "ratować Ojzyznę". Jak widzisz, znaków zapytania jest sporo. Mam nadzieję, że uda nam się to wspólnie wyjaśnić. — Kpalion 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wielkie dzięki za wyjaśnienie. Postaram się teraz jakoś uporządkować fragment o Czarnieckim w Poland Is Not Yet Lost. Gdybyś jeszcze mógł zaproponować jakieś źródła (zarówno dot. Czarnieckiego, jak i związków Wybickiego z Poznaniem), na które można by się powołać w artykule, to byłoby cudownie. — Kpalion 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


POlish Air Force

Czesc, jak dasz mi chwile to posprzatam ten balagan z silami powietrznymi ale co chwila mi cos zmieniasz i sie gubie :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryboy (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


MON nie zna angielskiego :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryboy (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


31blot

Ja nie ruszalem tego tematu od miesiaca :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryboy (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, what are you doing, ALL THE PICTURES ARE OF POLISH F-16. You are being a stubborn jerk. I'm trying to compromise. If you won't, I will report this issue to Wiki admins... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Same could be said for all those old Russian- made aircraft and utility helicopters you put up. I'm trying to showcase the newest air craft that Poland has received and if you are such an expert then you would notice that there are TWO variant to the Polish F-16 (C AND D) one has TWO SEAT AND EXTRA FUEL TANKS WHILE THE OTHER IS A ONE SEATER... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.97 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets, put it this way... here in the US I heard from a few WIKI users that the polish Air Force Page is poorly set up and the way it was organized looked like they were still flying those old Soviet planes. All I'm trying to do is clean up the images and showcase the new aircraft... it you can't dig it, iguess you just won't get it... look and presentation might not be your strong suit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an account set up, At this point I think we can come to a compromise and include both versions, I will make a few changes let me know what you think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.91.34 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what, In America they laugh at dumb "POLAKS" like you and Poland in general, because of things like this. I'm trying to make the page more up to date and show what is "new" and "show it in a positive manner". Also, I want to compromise and keep your ideas and photos, but for whatever reason you won't. " IS THE POLISH AIR FORCE GOING TO FLY THE GOVERNMENT VIP PLANE INTO COMBAT??? PEOPLE DON'T LOOK FOR UTILITY AIRCRAFT ON THE WEB, YET YOU PUT UP A WHOLE LINE OF PLANES THAT PEOPLE ARN'T INTERESTED IN"... Dude, you're stupid, you got no --public perception-- skills!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey idioto ja pochodze z Krakowa a teraz mieszkam w US. I widze jak tandetnie zagracasz "Polish Air Force" wiki page... Wes i puknij sie w leb... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.97 (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point, You can have your edits... despite the fact that I tried to Compromise and include everyones pics, you kept on reverting back to you changes... Just to point out you don't own this site... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Polish Air Force

I've added the page to my watchlist. Anon's comments above are obviously personal attacks, if he does anything else I will semiprotect the affected pages - since he has a dynamic IP I cannot block him efficiently. PS. Aha, zostawilem ci wiadomosc na rodzimej wersji :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)