User talk:Emax

Emax - twoje wykazy polskich herbow i grafika herbowa sa plagiatem

Dajemy ci szanse - zwroc sie z tym do autorow

Template:Polishcity

Zerknij, proszę, na Template talk:Polishcity. Myślę, że zamiast walczyć ciągle z Gz., możnaby się z nim jakoś dogadać i znaleźć jakieś modo vivendi. Halibu tt 07:32, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

No cóż, niestety byłem w błędzie... Halibu tt

comments

Comments go on talk pages, not on user pages. This also applies to anon pages. You should know that. Comment on anon page removed. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:45, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

You can add comments, but please do not change other peoples comments. That would be vandalism. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:44, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jan Nowak-Jeziorański

Czołem! Czy masz gdzieś w swoich archiwach zdjęcie PD do artykułu Jan Nowak-Jezioranski? Halibu tt 12:47, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Opis rv

Dobrze by bylo gdybys opisywal w Talku kazdego rv - zwlasza przy naszych drazliwych sasiadach z N i R. Wytrąciłoby to im z ręki argument przeciw nam :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Antypolonizm

Hmmmm.... nie do końca rozumiem o co Ci z tą kategorią chodziło. Samo zjawisko antypolonizmu nie jest dla mnie do końca jasne, a już zupełnie nie rozumiem co łączy sowieckie łagry z rzezią Pragi i George'm W Bushem. Myślę, że dobrze by było napisać najpierw artykuł o zjawisku, a dopiero później podciągać pod niego kategorię. Zwłaszcza że póki co pachnie mi to ostrym POVem... Halibu tt 22:45, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Nie zrozumieliśmy się. Ja antypolonizm rozumiem jako chorobliwą, nieumotywowaną niechęć do Polaków. Taka definicja nie obejmuje - moim zdaniem - zachowań psychopatycznych, a już kompletnie nie ma przełożenia na politykę. Poza tym ciężko nazwać masowe morderstwo czy czystkę etniczną przejawem niechęci. Chociaż z drugiej strony skoro można tak klasyfikować Category:Anti-Semitism... Halibu tt 23:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dzieki za pomoc przy blitzie, a co do apolonizmu, to chyba Halibutt zaproponowal salomonowe rozwiazanie - mieć ciastko i zjeść ciastko :) Dobre, nie sądzisz? Chodzi mi o 'idea' z Talk:Anti-polonism oczywisciie. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uważam, że przesadziłeś z Balcerem. Fakt, w wielu miejscach nie miał najlepszych pomysłów, ale osobiste ataki są niesprawiedliwe. Proszę, zastanów się na przyszłość nad twoim postępowaniem - nie chcesz chyba być uważany za polski odpowiednik Gzorneplatza? Powinniśmy się pozytwnie odróżniać od takiego nacjonalistycznego chamstwa. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Witaj

Jest pewna nieścisłość z publikacją wizerunków polskich monet i banknotów aktualnie w obiegu.

http://www.nbp.pl/home.aspx?f=disclaimer_banknoty.htm

Czy pytałeś NBP omożliwość publikacji?

Niki K 11:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Witaj

Jest pewna nieścisłość z publikacją wizerunków polskich monet i banknotów aktualnie w obiegu.

Zasady wykorzystywania wizerunków polskich banknotów i monet

Czy pytałeś NBP omożliwość publikacji?

Niki K 11:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

your general comments

Hi. Could I ask you two things? (1) Please write comments on article talk pages in english. I know it is a foreign language for you, but these talk pages are supposed to be understood by all contributors to the english wiki. On user talk pages you can use any language you wish, but on public talk pages please stick to english. (2) I think it would be good if you could tone down your comments. Constant degrading references to Deutschtum, Obersturmführer, Pickelhaube, etc. are not helpful in any discussion (as you may have noticed in recent conversations with me on an anons talk page - for which i apologized). (BTW, your english seems to be pretty good in ridiculing people) Now, pretty please, try to be nice yourself, too. I also removed the Obersturmbannfuhrer on Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer as a personal attack. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:14, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

You started it with brutaly explused, poor victim of ethnic cleansing and defender of "Deutschtum" . if you feel attacked by the nationalist, then you should remove this comment, too. That's why i asked you not to do this in the first place, it just leads to more trouble. Chris 73 Talk 11:11, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between calling someone a (german/polish) nationalist and calling somebody a nazi henchman. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:19, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

While i don't know him as well as you do, it seems from his user page that he is not german. in any case, if you find the nationalist offensive, then you should not use it yourself. Also, even if he is german, he probably has no connecton to the nazi regime except his heritage. Could you at least try to be nice? -- Chris 73 Talk 11:41, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

And, oh please, don't remove the disputed tag. You of all people should know that there IS a dispute on Lucas David, and Halibutt also told me to add a tag -- Chris 73 Talk 11:43, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

So be nice to me too and keep the dispute tag. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:45, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Zdjątka

Mówiłem Ci już że jesteś moim bogiem? :) Dodałem opis do obrazka i nie omieszkam go wykorzystać - dzięki wielkie (Mam Kossaka i nie zawaham się go użyć :D ). Co do Kohlera - będę miał oko. Halibu tt 17:18, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Jednak tak, mam tę książkę w tej chwili na kolanach, i w stopce jest wyraźnie podany taki właśnie tytuł :) Halibu tt 17:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gdańsk i przyległości

Czołgiem! John K. poprosił mnie o pomoc w sprawie Wolnego Miasta. Nie do końca wiem o co tym razem poszło, ale redirect na Free City of Gdańsk nie ma dla mnie większego sensu. Dawno, dawno temu toczyliśmy niekończącą się wojnę o artykuł o Gdańsku i revertom nie było końca. Paru kolegów zza Odry (a tak naprawdę, jak się później okazało, zza Wielkiej Wody - tak to już bywa że emigranci się radykalizują...) nawet twierdziło, że to miasto do dziś się nazywa Danzig w angielszczyźnie.

Wtedy udało nam się dotrzeć do bolesnego kompromisu w sprawie nazewnictwa: gdzie to możliwe używamy nazw oficjalnie obowiązujących w danym państwie w danej epoce. Ma to swoje złe strony - bo Wolne Miasto się zwie z niemiecka, ale dzięki temu możemy uniknąć takich perełek jak "Uniwersytet Jana Kazimierza we L'vivie" czy kretynizmów w stylu "Ktośtam-ktośtam urodził się w 1929 w Vilniusie".

A teraz do rzeczy: czy masz naprawdę coś przeciwko temu kompromisowi (bo, jak widzę z historii edycji, chodzi wyłącznie o nazwę artykułu, nie o jego treść), czy też po prostu zacząłeś revertować bo pojawiła się jakaś anonimowa pacynka? Jeśli to drugie - to lepiej przestań, bo John ma ostatnio chyba zły okres i łaknie krwi :), a jeśli to pierwsze - spróbuj się z nimi dogadać na stronie dyskusji. Odkąd nie ma palantów w stylu Nico czy Wika (no dobrze, wiem że jest Gzornenplatzem, ale jednak trochę się zmienił), z Johnem i innymi naprawdę można się dogadać. --Pozdrowionka - Halibu tt 22:15, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Glinsky

Jasne. Odpowiedzialem. A moglbys zerknac na Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates i zaglosowac w Bitwie Warszawskiej? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ban

I'll look into your case, but you really should cool down. Accusing ppl of lying is *not* helping your case, not matter if you are right or not. And you really should avoid rv wars - ask for aribtration or such, but rv will lead, well, to ban...sooner or later, even if you are not the guilty party - wiesz, gdzie drwale rąbią... :>--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what Piotrus said. Don't let them ban you permanently for such a silly reason, you're too good at finding great pictures :D Halibu tt 19:14, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Controversial blocks applies to the blocking admin, not to the blocked user. Also, next time you put me up as a request for arbitration, could you kindly let me know about it? -- Chris 73 Talk 16:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Interiors

Congratulations on the gorgeous photographs of the Presidential Palace, Warsaw. Would it be possible to identify more specifically each chamber that is pictured, rather than calling them all "Inside" (more properly, "Interior")? Logologist 08:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your Controversial block

Why do You banned me yesterdey? Your block wasn't backed by official policy. And why do you simply ignored my emails?--Emax 14:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I replied to you in <20050202023811.GA22920@var.cx> which was delivered to your mailserver at Feb 2 03:37:37. --fvw * 17:52, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

I dont received any emails from You.--Emax 17:58, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Users calling admins morons

Emax, I don't know anything about your dispute with Chris, but I thought I'd correct you on a statement you made on the arbitration page. Admins are called morons by users all the time. I've been called much, much worse. Granted, sometimes admins act like morons. But anyone who comes here to vandalize or make trouble specifically targets admins and says many nasty things to them. Sometimes they can be banned for violations of policy, but a user who shows up and simply leaves me nasty notes can sometimes hang around a long time -- months and months -- before they get banned. I know some people seem to feel, as you do, that admins ban people merely for offending them, but I can assure you that in 98% of the cases, admins endure huge amounts of undeserved abuse before a user is dealt with. I don't if that's true in your case, but it is very much true in general. Jwrosenzweig 18:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know anything about this particular case. Yes, admins should behave well, but so should users. Making fun of someone else's culture is rude and I don't want to see it around here, but I think it's very debatable to say that our site's policies demand serious consequences for someone saying such things. Plenty of people bash the United States on Wikipedia with regularity (and I've seen shots taken at France, England, all Islamic nations, wtc.) and I don't see that many of them are taken to task with any speed. I agree with you that it would be wrong to mock someone's culture, but I don't know that you're right that an admin doing these things would be treated any differently than a user. In any case, I hope there is no trouble in the future between you and Chris, and that all is resolved soon. Jwrosenzweig 19:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

KnowledgeSeeker is correct -- Chris's comment isn't vandalism. Again, please stop making guesses and assumptions about how things would be if Chris was doing this. If you called Chris a moron on his talk page, and he added a notice about that to Vandalism in progress, it would be removed also. Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your entry on Vandalism in Progress

Hi Emax, just wanted to let you know that I removed your entry on Vandalism in Progress. Please read the directions at the top of the page before posting an alert. The first sentences on the page are

Please report vandalism at the top of the "Current alerts" list below. Please only use this page for repeated malicious vandalism, not for one-off edits, or newbie tests. Except in cases of vandalbot or other rapid-fire attacks, please warn users and wait for further vandalism before listing them here. Do not list non-vandalism (see Cautions and alternatives below).

I understand you may have been offended by a comment, but that does not qualify as vandalism—in fact, the vandalism page specifically mentions that personal attacks are not considered vandalism. Furthermore, the directions state to "only use this page for repeated malicious vandalism" and to "wait for further vandalism" before posting an entry. I hope this all makes sense. Why don't you take a look at the vandalism page, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 20:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emax, thanks for your question. Vandalism in Progress is definitely not the place for this, as it is neither vandalism nor "in progress." For one thing, it looks like this took place back on January 14th. Second, ViP is for users who are repeatedly vandalizing articles. The first step is to ask the user to stop; if he or she doesn't, and continues to vandalize articles, then the user should be listed on ViP. Since in this case, the episode occurred just once, it is not appropriate for ViP.

With regards to your second question, I am not sure there is any page report such an action. If you are having a conflict with another user, dispute resolution lists the steps you can take. The first step, after avoidance, is to talk to the other person. If calling another user a moron was the only problem, then it would appear that the conflict is over, and no resolution is necessary. The other thing is that while you stated that he called another user a "moron", the diff you provided showed him adding "what a mXXXX." Did he use the word moron somewhere else? — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 21:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emax, to me it looks like this matter has been resolved. I don't think you will find much success in pursuing this matter any longer. This is because it looks like Chris made a couple unfortunate comments, realized his error, and apologized for them. You seem concerned that he apologized after you mentioned the issue to Halibutt, but I don't think there is anything wrong with apologizing after someone else points out one's error. There really is no place to report this type of problem, because it is not really considered a "punishable offense" to let a make a couple comments with poor judgment, apologize, and then not do it again. This is why there hasn't been much support of these complaints—it has nothing to do with administrators versus ordinary users (note that I am not an administrator; I'm an ordinary user like you). What kind of action would you like to see against Chris? A 24-hour ban? That wouldn't really be appropriate, as the behavior in question has long passed. Twenty-four–hour bans are used not for punishment, but to stop users who are repeatedly vandalizing or disrupting Wikipedia. For instance, a user who is repeatedly vandalizing articles despite requests to stop might be blocked for twenty-four hours; this will let the user cool down and hopefully either he will be more rational when resuming editing or he will lose interest in Wikipedia. However, if someone had repeatedly vandalized pages last week but was never blocked, it would not be appopriate to block now since the vandalism had stopped. Does this make sense? You are of course free to continue how you wish, but my suggestion would be that unless Chris has continued with problematic comments, you let this matter rest. Not only has he not made any new offensive comments, but he has recognized the inappropriateness of them and apologized. Many Wikipedia users wouldn't even give you that. In any case, as he clearly does not fit the criteria for a twenty-four–hour ban, I cannot see what else could be accomplished by continued pursuit of this matter. I think the best thing to do at this point would be to accept Chris's apologies, and to work together now to improve Wikipedia. If you have any questions or have any problems, or would like to discuss this further, please let me know. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything Knowledge Seeker said above, but I would like to add that labeling an established user as "vandal" by repeatedly adding comments of that nature to WP:VIP (against the page's charter and without any evidence) could be in itself interpreted as a personal attack. jni 10:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mediation, Vandalism, & Arthur Schopenhauer

Hi. Again, if you do a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, it would be nice if you could let all involved parties know about it. Same applies to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, but I guess that one is now no longer relevant. In general I would recommend you to calm down. If you want to discuss items with me, please let me know on my talk page, and I am happy to respond. Also, on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, it is usually common to have a meditation between two parties, not against one party, so you may change the header to Chris 73 vs Emax or so.

Also, you may have noticed that Arthur Schopenhauer is currently protected. This is so that a discussion can be worked out on the talk page. As you are one of the involved parties in the previous dispute, you are very welcome to join the discussion, hopefully we can come to a solution, so there is no continuation of the edit war. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:51, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I am writing down your steps just in case. Your current behavior is not really proper. I still hope that I won't need those notes. I have taken occasionally notes of other users behavior, too, and so far never had the need to use them, as I was able to come to a peaceful solution. So, please give it a try. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:54, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to put it on your watchlist. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

view of justice

About your three points: (1) I don't know any helga. The anonymous editor seemed to make reasonable edits as far as i checked. (2) I have apologized to SpaceCadet, an apology which he seemed to have accepted. (3) For the culture thing, I have apologized on Halibutt's talk page, which he seemed to have accepted. Hence I believe this issue to be resolved. Judging from the response on the Requests for arbitration, Vandalism in progress listing, Requests for mediation, and various comments on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and my talk page so far the general consensus seems to agree with me. You may of course have different views, although I cannot make everybody happy. As for the suggestion of a 24th (24 hour?) block or a 1 month abstain from polish articles: Using the same rules this would also apply to you, and I believe you have more questionable comments in your edit history than me. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering. (1) No I don't know helga, and the edits i saw by the anon were in general good. I also did not know Ghirlandajo and Gene s before. (2) In my eyes an apology suffices, especially since the apology was sincere. You seem to have exhausted most of the dispute resolution methods (Arbitration was rejected, Vandalism was not appropriate, and theMeditation is somewhat hanging in the air since the link you gave refers to the now-removed arbitration request). If you really want to continue a request for more strict actions, I think the only thing left you could do as part of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution would be a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. However, I would advise you to listen to the numerous other users commenting on your talk page to see this matter as settled (3) About your block: You broke the 3RR, as confirmed by other admins (and, believe me, admins looked at the facts on the 3RR noticeboard). This rule applies to everyone, and if you see another user reverting a page more than three times in 24 hours, please feel free to request a block. I will be happy to block the user (including myself). (Note: This applies to recent cases, not something that happened in December or so). Also, in case it happens to you again, please use email and IRC to contact admins, and do NOT edit using an anonymous IP adress for block evasion. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:18, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Prosba o pomoc - blitzkrieg

Co prawda to nie dotyczy bezposrednio Polski, ale bylbym wdzieczny gdybys zerknal na Talk:Blitzkrieg#Inaccurate_changes i ten revert. Byc moze nie mam racji - nie chce samotnie zaczynac rv wara z tym 119. Ale jesli uwazasz, ze mam racje, bylbym wdzieczny gdybys wspomnial o tym na talku tej strony i ew. zrewertowal 119. Dzieki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Taka bzdura

Spojrz prosze na Arthur Schopenhauer/Temp. Ryniek aka Space Cadet 02:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pałac Saski

Thanks for bringing "Pałac Saski" to my attention. I've expanded it a little. Hope the Palace does get rebuilt: it's a world-class historic site. Logologist 17:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. A goodly floor space in the rebuilt Saxon Palace should be reserved for an Enigma-decryption museum and world center for Enigma-related research and international conferences. (It was here that the course of World War II was changed, nearly 7 years before its outbreak, by 3 Polish mathematician-cryptologists.)

With your remarkable illustration-finding skills, I'm sure you could track down a photo of the Belweder Palace (preferably with its most important tenant, Józef Piłsudski, lounging in front of it?). Logologist 05:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been block from editing for 24 hours for breaking the wikipedia 3 revert ruleGeni 02:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Commons:

Please upload Polish history related public domain images directly on commons:. They are definitely sharable between English/Polish/Belarusian (which one I forget? :-) Wikipedias. Thank you for your great job! --EugeneZelenko 03:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Enigma cryptologists

I've redone the article on Marian Rejewski. It would be nice if photos could be found of him and his colleagues, Jerzy Różycki and Henryk Zygalski. Logologist 11:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up a picture of Różycki. Are you sure, though, that the image is public domain? — Matt Crypto 14:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dziękuję za piękne zdjęcia polskich kryptologów-enigmatologów! (For our Polophonically-challenged friends: "Thanks for the beautiful photos of the Polish Enigma cryptologists!") Logologist 05:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Your work in digging up photos for these cryptographers is part of this month's "project digest" in cryptography: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography/February 2005. Thanks again! — Matt Crypto 13:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia

Please do not carry on conversations in foreign languages on Talk pages for articles. This is inappropriate and inconsiderate to your fellow editors. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:55, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Helikoptery

Dzięki. Mamy to gdzieś na piśmie? (żeby wiedziec co powoływać w opisie - zwłaszcza odnośnie obrazków?) Pibwl 16:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nie wiem, czy Świdnik zdaje sobie sprawę, na czym polega udostępnienie materiałów na licencji GFDL :-) Odnośnie zdjęć, byłbym więc ostrożny - a z fairuse nie będą się nadawały na polską Wiki. Zresztą, patrzę na tą stronę i chyba i tak nie ma problemu, bo zdjęcia są mikre :-) Pibwl 17:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NBP

Ha! Jak ochrzcic taką licencje???

Niki K 00:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 11:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Masuria & Gizycko

Czesc!

Mozesz uzasadnic dlaczego usunales kategorie 'East Prussia' z artykulow w naglowku?

Pozdrawiam

KKramer 14:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uzasadnienie umieszeczenia kategorii:

Prusy Wschodnie są krainą historyczną do której zarówno (dzisiejsze) Giżycko jak i całe Maury bezsprzecznie należały. Co więcej pod pojęciem Mazur rozumiano ich całkiem sporą część. Przyporządkowanie ich do tej kategorii wskazuje na położenie w historii, a nawet bardziej bo wskazuje na korzenie regionu. Nie przyporządkowuje ich to za w żaden sposób do dzisiejszych Niemiec.

Umieszczając tą kategorię chcę dać czytającemu, który ma na ogół bardzo niewielką wiedzę na ten temat, możliwość lepszego umiejscowienia nie tylko w przestrzeni ale też w czasie (historii).

Jak łatwo można się domyślić pochodzę z Giżycka i muszę przyznać, że nigdy nie przeszkadzała mi jego pruska przeszłość. Jeden (a w zasadzie wszystkie) z ważniejszych zabytków Giżcyka - twierdza Boyen - pochodzi z XIX wieku i odgrywał bardzo ważną rolę w pruskim systemie umocnień. Jest jednak bezsprzecznie pruską budowlą.

Tak jak Białystok jest bezsprzecznie polskim miastem od wieków, tak Giżycko było bardzo długo miastem pruskim i to tworzy bardzo istotną część jego historii.

Wystarczy jako uzasadnienie?

KKramer 19:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wladek

Jak pisalem juz w Talku kilka dni temu, seckja elekcja powtarza informacje z reignu. Po co pisac kiedy zostal wybrany jak wyzej pisze od kiedy do kiedy panowal? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

witaj, dzięki za pomoc przy Wojciech Jastrzebowski

Nie do końca wiem - może mnie uświadomisz? Dlaczego hasła en wikipedii nie pojawiają się od razu. Hasło twórcy nauko - ergonomii pisałem dwukrotnie - łamaną angielszczyzną... i dopiero ta druga wersja pojawiła się na stronie z kilkudniowmy opóźnieniem. Myślę, że mają jakieś zabezpieczenia albo Ty tą stronę wyłowiłeś z uznanych do skasowania. A może się mylę?

Pozdrawiam :-) 217. ..

Orleta lwowskie

Czy moglbys przeniesc obraz Image:Orleta.jpg z angielskiej Wikipedii do Common? Nie bardzo wiem, jak to zrobic, a chcialbym go wstawic do polskiej strony o Orletach, nad ktora (nieustannie) pracuje. Pozdrawiam Stako 07:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rank insignia gallery.

I was just browsing through User:Emax/Image gallery/Stopnie, and I noticed that (a) the images aren't copyright-tagged, and (b) are in JPG format. PNG works better for drawings like those. I don't think there are copyright problems with drawing insignia on your own, but I dropped a line to the reference desk to ask about it. I'm going to start converting the JPGs to PNGs and listing the originals for deletion---you'll notice me editing that gallery page during this process. Since you didn't specify a license, and your user page specifies that your contributions are multi-licensed GFDL, cc-by-sa and cc-by-sa-2.0, I'll be attributing original creation of the images to you, and tagging them with that copyright. If you have questions or objections, reply here or drop a note on my userpage.

Thanks! grendel|khan 02:36, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Template:Szlachta ?

I was thinking of making a template in place of current bioboxes in our szlachta article. First, I am thinking if it should be Template:Szlachta or Template:Szlachcic (but what about szlachcianka?). Second, I was looking for an existing bio templage but couldn't find any at Wikipedia:Template messages - do you know which one we can use? Or should we create an entirely new template? I was thinking of following sections: Noble Family, Coat of Arms, Offices (that's one important thing that is missing from our current hand mande boxes), Parents, Consorts, Children, Place and Date of Birth, Place and Date of Death. Finally, we can also use a variant of that for our kings. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

Is Image:Antoniuk.jpg, which you made and uploaded, licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License? --Ellmist 02:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Templates for Deletion

Hi. You probably already know that some of your templates have been listed for deletion on TfD. Or maybe you don't know, since the TfD are very sneaky in not informing the people who actually use or create the templates!

It's a shame that TfD is dominated by a handful of people with a grudge against large, useful navigational templates, and want to see them all replaced by smaller, incomplete, less useful ones. And for some of the more fanatical members, even that's not enough; they want to remove all navigational templates and force everyone to only use Categories to find related articles! Maybe lovers of big templates should mobilise ourselves and make a permanent presence on TfD to argue against deleting them? Otherwise, this is just the thin end of the wedge! Miss Pippa 11:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dziwie sie, ze nie wypowiedziales sie jeszcze przy Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Chancellors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Hello. I notice you did a template on the Marshal of Poland. I was wondering what advice can you give me on templates, since I want to make a template on Marshals of the Soviet Union. Thanks. Zscout370 22:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bema.jpg

Did you create Image:Bema.jpg yourself? If so, please replace {{unverified}} with {{gfdl}}, or whatever tag you feel is appropriate. Thanks, LeonWhite.

Image:Bialostoczek.jpg

Same applies for Image:Bialostoczek.jpg. Thanks, LeonWhite 18:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Help is needed in Zaklikow

Hello Emax. I recently started and still working on Zaklikow. Your help will be appreciated in the article. I saw you helped in Sosnowiec. Do your magic!--AAAAA 15:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Co sie stalo 18 lutego?

Emaxie, zniknales nam z Wiki tego dnia. Brakuje nam ciebie... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zaiste. Halibu tt 14:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright tags

Thanks for uploading Skorupy.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Casito⇝Talk 02:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Herb Topór

Topór powinien być zwrócony w lewą stronę patrząc z punktu widzenia trzymającego tarczę, a więc w prawo dla patrzącego na tarczę. jak tu Wybacz, że do ciebie żale kieruję, ale ty wstawiłeś obrazek.

Image:German Soviet.jpg

~~Hello, could you please add info on the source to this image? I have provisionally put it on WP:IFD, as it looks slightly dodgy to me without that info. --213.54.206.35 09:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)~~ Has been cleared up, I found the source and added it to the image page. --213.54.206.35 10:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD: Nazi or German Occupation?

Check this VfD vote: [1] --Ttyre 19:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image license

Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:Image:Sloneczny Stok.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you.

Image copyright problem with Image:Sosnowiec Flaga.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sosnowiec Flaga.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Copy any tag from pl wiki to eng wiki.

Image copyright problem with Image:Sosnowiec Herb.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sosnowiec Herb.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Copy any tag from pl wiki to eng wiki.

Image copyright problem with Image:Sosnowiec Mapa.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sosnowiec Mapa.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Copy any tag from pl wiki to eng wiki.

Image:Zygmunt Berling.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Zygmunt Berling.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. It looks like you've left, but if you come back and are at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. I've marked you on this list as "inactve". Feel free to update this as well. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 3, 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Image:Jozef Oleksy.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Jozef Oleksy.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

--Admrboltz 4 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

Image:Jozef Pilsudski.JPG

Image deletion warning

Image:Jozef Pilsudski.JPG has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

--Admrboltz 4 July 2005 10:11 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Polonism vfd

Hi: Category:Anti-Polonism has been listed for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Anti-Polonism. Thank you. IZAK 5 July 2005 10:07 (UTC)

Image:PSP Dywizjon 303.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:PSP Dywizjon 303.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Info on image, please

Please go to Image:Palac Saski.jpg and edit that image description page to give the source (URL, if online; ISBN, if scanned from a book; and if you've taken the image yourself, just say so) and the licensing status (the list of image copyright tags might be useful) of this image. All our images should have this information. Thank you. Lupo 11:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]