Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:24, 28 November 2008

John McCain

My apologies. I removed it in error. I have restored your comment. My mistake. JodyB _talk 00:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mieczyslaw Jagielski

No problem, I should have waited more so you could've restored it yourself. I can look on Polish net in the future, but for now, check this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So... why Jagielski? Not the most notable figure out there :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for improving such a marginal article. It is efforts such as yours that truly make this project worthwhile! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Google Print is a wonderful resource, I am sure you'll find it very useful in the future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is little more we can do till we get GA reviewers reply, so yes, let's go ahead and do it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Further collaboration

Have you considered using WP:BABEL to declare languages you speak? Perhaps we can select another figure to destub and DYK based on our common interests? Collaboration is so much more fun than doing it alone... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Further collaboration... I guess I have too many ideas :) As long as is something related to Poland or sociology, count me in :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. That's a much more prominent figure, and we will certainly have a ton of materials.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ed's Tower

No bad blood; however, I would have expected for you to have replaced my tag with a Speedy Deletion-notability tag given the flimsiness of the article.

ttonyb1 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for the explanation. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Mieczysław Jagielski

On 25 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mieczysław Jagielski, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wojciech Jaruzelski

I was not aware of specific policy for infobox pictures. The photo you found is pretty good, and you can upload it to commons under commons:PD-Poland and into WJ category :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Disruptive user

Reference to de Zayas, hmmm? Seen it before :( I haven't run into this user before but I've run into some of his friends. Usually I've my hands full of trying to deal with various POV pushers on Poland-related articles (which earns me much wikistress...); if that user becomes more disruptive, you may ask User:Moreschi or User:AGK for more advice.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations

Dear Terrakyte,

You wrote:

"When I read the above post, I thought that I should write a statement explaining well why this edit () to the Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918–1938) article did not comply with WP:NPOV. However, after reading several statements made by other editors on this talk page stating why many of your edits do not comply with WP:NPOV, I decided that there was no point in re-iterating something that you have been told many times."

OK. Please note:

What you are doing, is a very unpolite way of talking to people. "I have told you many times", this is the way that parents speak to their children and i think it is very impolite of you. I am sorry to tell you, dear Terrakyte, but you do not have any right to talk like that. Well, first thing: From now on, please try to remain polite, thank you.

You wrote:

"I was surprised by the fact that, after being reported to the admins for breaking NPOV several times, you were not blocked. However, having discovered the discussion in which that particular period of NPOV violations was discussed by the admins, I can see that you were not blocked not because the admins thought you didn't deserve it, but because the discussion went inactive, though all recommendations posted stated that you should be blocked, some even suggesting indefinetly."

Please stop making offensive personal remarks against me, and again: Please try to remain polite. Speaking of me, "deserving" anything, seems very offensive and abusive to me, and i ask you politely to stop making personal offensive remarks towards me. If this continues, i will have to report you to the Admins. Please try to remain polite and balanced, thank you.

Also, what you are saying is not true. I wonder how you want to know what the Admins think or don't think? Of course they have not blocked me because of any "inactivity" of any discussion as you claim. But because they simply do not seem to share your point of view. I am involved in many other discussions, too, which are not inactive.

You wrote:

"Follow the rules from now on".

When you talk to me, please dont give me orders. You are in now way entitled to talk to me like this. "Follow the rules" is an order. I would appreciate very much, if you add the word "please", and you will see that it is not difficult to always remain polite, thank you.

"I'm sorry that you feel like the warnings are abuse, but the warnings are justified."

Well, they are not and i think you know that very well. Everything i have written is veryfiable, and unlike some authors, i do not interprete facts, but just state facts.

For example, in the article about Czechoslovakia - which seems very controversial to me due to some quite biased authors - one Author wrote that the Lord-Runciman-Report was expression of "Failure" of Britain. Well, this is complete nonsense. If these Authors had taken a closer look at this report, they would have noticed that it is not expression of failure of the British Government, but of the Benes-Government. Lord Runciman delivered a devastating indictment of the then Czech Government, accusing them of "tactlessness", and we all know, that Official Government documents are written in a quite euphemistic manner.

You see, some articles in Misplaced Pages really do need some closer scientific examination. I think many people are very glad, that i am willing to help ameliorating the quality of Misplaced Pages. We all should strive for the best quality, dont you agree? I am very willing to help you, too, whenever i can. But please, remember to remain polite. Thank you.

kind regards,

Peter

--PeterBln (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)