User talk:PolishPoliticians

Hi, Please don't create articles with Polish diacritics in their titles. In English Wikipedia all articles titles must be in ISO-8859-1. See Lech Walesa as an example. You should move Lech Kaczyński into Lech Kaczynski, and use form Kaczyński in the article form itself. Note that ó is an exception as it appears in ISO-8859-1, thus Józef Oleksy works OK. Jeśli masz jakieś pytania nie krępuj się. Przepla 23:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi. It's me again. I changed L. Kaczynski's photos on all pages. The one you uploaded is very propably copyright violation. Fortunately, the for the media photo is available so please use this one instead. Przepla 22:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Szczecin

Hello, (again). I am very unhappy with changes you have made in the History of Szczecin article. Changing all names from English to Polish (Odra river is a redirect to Oder River, duplicated links, etc. I am reverting to previous version from Szczecin. BTW. Are you the same user as User:Szczecin? Przepla 12:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hevelius

Listen pal, have you at least tried to read the discussion about Hevelius? There was long revert war about this article and few others and we finally came to compromise. I am Pole myself and i don't particularly like it, but we have made it so we shoudl stick to it!!! Szopen 07:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi,

Can you have a look into the articles edited by User:Irredenta: Vilnius, Gabriel Fahrenheit, Johann Reinhold Forster, Georg Forster. Regards.Yeti 10:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Linki

Od jakiegoś czasu dodajesz masowo linki do artykułów o miastach. A to do polityków, a to do uczelni. Nie mnie wnikać czy są to informacje istotne. Mógłbyś się jednak postarać i nie robić linków nie działających. Na przykład wiele uczelni ma już swoje strony. Angielska Wiki nie obsługuje jednak polskich znaków i linki zapisane z nimi działać nie będą. Mógłbyś to poprawić? Halibutt 02:03, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Dzięki za Twoje uwagi na temat polskich uczelni. Mój plan polega na tym aby dodać listę polskich uczelni wyższych, na podstawie oficjalnego spisu MEN, do stron angielskich i polskich. Drugim krokiem będzie przetłumacznie nazw polskich na angielski. PolishPoliticians 02:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

W przypadku większych miast nie obędzie się chyba bez osobnej podstrony albo chociaż tabelki, bo lista kilkudziesięciu uczelni niepublicznych, z których żadna pewnie nie ma własnego artykułu na wiki, zajęłaby za dużo miejsca. Zobacz jak rozwiązałem całą sprawę na stronie Warsaw. Może być? Halibutt 14:29, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Pełna akceptacja dla Education in Warsaw

No to świetnie! Halibutt 02:35, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Personal insults

Can you watch the personal insults in edit summaries in articles like Gdansk? Calling others Nazis is not acceptable. Pakaran. 01:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion the Nazis should be called the Nazis. The problem is some editors spread the Neo-Nazi ideas in Wikipedia, and they should be stopped somehow. The example is profanating Polish cities with the Nazi names, another example is calling the Nazi atrocities during WWII, the legal action of the legal German government. The Nazi atrocities should be called Nazi atrocities, people speading Nazi propaganda should be called the Nazis, don't you agree??? PolishPoliticians 01:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your editing someone's user page and slapping the Neo-nazi label on them is out of line. [1]. 147.8.224.157 01:38, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, placing additions on others' user pages calling them Neo-Nazis is NOT acceptable. If this continues you're very likely to be taken to the arbitration committee. Pakaran. 01:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dont call people Nazis. See Godwin's Law. -SV 02:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Szczecin (yet another consensus proposition)

Co myślisz, o umieszczeniu w nagłówku takiego zdania: formerly referenced in English by it's German name Stettin? Jeśli wyrażasz zgodę, napisz na Talk:Szczecin. Przepla 09:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Naming issues

I have made a proposition in Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention#Other_concepts. In short, it's sing most controversial names when first name appears in artcile and making a msg saying that the names are controversial and pointing to article explaining why. Please, contribute your opinion.Szopen 10:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

English and Nazi city names

Gdansk, Elblag and Torun are NOT English names. The English names are the same as the German names, and they are NOT Nazi names. RickK 23:39, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please see for example www.gdansk.pl , www.elblag.pl and www.torun.pl to see that the cities's authorities use these names (Gdańsk, Elbląg, Toruń) in their ENGLISH language subpages, so this means that they think they are the English names of the cities. In all English language publications I have seen these names are used. The German names are rarely mentioned, but always as German names (nothing more). The German people did much hurm to the Polish people during WWII. Since that time the German names are considered to be extremly offensive (like painting the Nazi swastikas on Jewish graves. Please be informed and try to understand. Thank you. PolishPoliticians 23:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just because people in Poland use these names in English-language websites doesn't mean that English speaking people use these names. Those are Polish people speaking English. English speaking people say Danzia, Elbing and Thorn. RickK 23:49, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

All native English people I know speak and write Gdansk, Elblag and Torun. At least as soon as they are informed the Nazi names are offensive. PolishPoliticians 23:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since those names were known long before anybody every heard of National Socialism, to refer to them as Nazi names is offensive. And guess what? Now you've met a native English speaker who doesn't think they're offensive, but does think that your characterizations of them as Nazi is offensive. RickK 04:07, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Swastika symbol was also known long before the Nazis, and today it is considered offensive in certain situations, don't you agree?

Yes, the Nazis liked certain city names. They also liked blonde hair and Protestants. This does not make Hillary Clinton a Nazi symbol. Pakaran. 04:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blondes are not offensive, swastika and Danzig is offesive - that's the difference. PolishPoliticians 04:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vladislaus I of Poland

Stop moving things without discussion. You are trying to turn the English Wikipedia into the Polish Wikipedia. Why don't you go work on the Polish Wikipedia and quit your POV edits? RickK 05:22, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

He ings' ame ere ladislaus (n atin ersion) nd ładysław (n olish ersion). on't ee hy e hould rop he irst etter rom he ing's ame.

The kings' name were Vladislaus (in Latin version) and Władysław (in Polish version). I don't see why we should drop the first letter from the king's name. PolishPoliticians 05:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because, as you seem not to have grasped, this is the English Wikipedia, and the names you are moving them to are not the names as they are known in English. 05:27, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I've never heard the Vladislaus version in any language. Perhaps you were referring to Romanian name Vlad? Halibutt 06:04, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Moving Ladislaus II to Vladisluas in English Wikipedia is like moving pl:Elżbieta I to pl:Elizabeth I in Polish Wikipiedia with arguments: that Elizabeth never had ż in her name, and you don't see reason for insertion such strange characters into it. Please, try acknowledge that English names differs from Polish. Przepla 09:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Naming wars

Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in User:Szopen/NamingWar. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you. Szopen 09:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration result

See wikipedia:requests for arbitration. You have been placed under personal attack parole, due to your use of personal attacks in the past. If you make personal attacks in the future, administrators may, at their judgement, ban you from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. Martin 21:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Sock Puppets and Cliques

Hi, I'm just trying to figure if there is any way to identify sock puppets. The assumption seems to be that puppets only do small numbers of edits.

Last Apr/May while Wik & John_Kenney where edit warring the West Papua articles to dumb down Melanesians in the articles; I found where John was instructing Wik on how to prevent Tannin or myself from editing the pages. Upon checking their Wikipedia activity at the time I got the impression they were both pro-Palestine in Israel articles, and pro-Indonesian government in West Papua articles - or in other terms anti-jewish and & anti-Melanesian (black). It looked to me that they had formed a very small clique to enforce their POV though John was intelligent enough to be careful how he did this, but he did also jump to Wik's defence.

A few weeks ago upon my return to the West Papua page, John starts reverting again, then Gzornenplatz waged in just like Wik use to. Later, when John was lossing ground in the discussion page & Jmarbel was not accepting his POV, suddenly this OneGuy jumped in to break up that discussion and get it back under John's control.

To me OneGuy sounded like John when he's upset, then I checked their contribution lists and it looked more like someone who sometimes switched between two accounts. For a new user, OneGuy seems very active just like John was last year. So is OneGuy John's sock puppet? And dare one mention it?

John's activity last year was typically 1600 edits/ month (1100 to 2400); it will be interesting to see if John & OneGuy can both maintain their levels at the same time. But how can one show proof of a sock puppet if the puppeteer is intelligent ?--Daeron 04:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW: I notice OneGuy is defending Gzornenplatz, just like John use to defend Wik. But how to know who is who ?--Daeron 04:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Liga_Polskich_Rodzin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Liga_Polskich_Rodzin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Unia pracy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Unia pracy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Jozef_Gruszka.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jozef_Gruszka.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Janusz_Lewandowski.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Janusz_Lewandowski.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Dzielnice Poznań opis.png

Thanks for uploading File:Dzielnice Poznań opis.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello PolishPoliticians! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,061 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Jacek Saryusz-Wolski - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Janusz Onyszkiewicz - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Zdzisław Chmielewski - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)