• Ą - Ą
• Ć - Ć
• Ę - Ę
• Ł - Ł
• Ń - Ń
• Ó - Ó
• Ś - Ś
• Ż - Ż
• Ź - Ź

• ą - ą
• ć - ć
• ę - ę
• ł - ł
• ń - ń
• ó - ó
• ś - ś
• ż - ż
• ź - ź

• Č - Č
• Š - Š
• Ž - Ž
• Đ - Đ
• Ć - Ć

• č - č
• š - š
• ž - ž
• đ - đ
• ć - ć

Boraczku, ale kompletnie już nie rozumiem czemu wykasowałeś ostanie zmiany anona na stronie artykułu Poland ([1]). Co dziwne, w zasadzie wstawił on w całości moją propozycję z Talk:Poland, a wydaje mi się że moja wersja jest nieco mniej wieloznaczna. Co Ci się w niej nie podoba? Pozdrowionka, [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:13, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

No nie wiem czy wybory kontraktowe można uznać za demokratyczne. Prasa zazwyczaj tak je określa, ale jest to raczej skrót myślowy. Tak czy siak - Twoja propozycja wydaje się niezła, po drobnej poprawce zaproponuję ją na stronie dyskusji. Tylko nie wiem czy jest dalej sens dyskutować z facetem (?) który twierdzi, że państwa komunistyczne były bardziej demokratyczne niż demokracje rządzone przez multikorporacje.. Z teorii spiskowych trudno się wyleczyć, a już na pewno nie mam ochoty kogokolwiek od nich odwodzić, za ciężka to praca... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:52, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of your insistence to copy & paste a section of the communist state article into the communism article? Besides being blatantly POV (and thus in need of major editing), it doesn't even belong there. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss your changes before continuing this revert war. Go to Talk:Communism and explain why you believe that section should be included. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The very least you could do is answer when people are trying to talk to you... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wish I had a good idea of what to do. An RfC could be started, but they are almost completely ineffective. If any actual measure were ever taken - which it never has been against the armies of sockpuppets who often declared open war on Wikipedia - he would just create yet another account. No, the only option appears to be to fight indefinitely to make it clear he will accomplish nothing with all this revert-warring. Sad, but that's what it's come to. VeryVerily 13:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid Shorne is not going to stop. Shall we open a discussion about user conduct in Wikipedia:Request for comment ? What do you think? Boraczek 13:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please do. Fred Bauder 13:47, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. But if that wasn't the case, I would have opened a discussion about your conduct, Boraczek. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding doing a RfC regarding Shorne. Before we can do that we must pass this threshold:

"Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."

If you feel that any issues exist with respect to his edits, please enter into a dialogue on User talk:Shorne and see how much progress we can make through negotiation. Fred Bauder 18:47, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

The section /*Request mediation with User:VeryVerily*/ at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily due (only) to the size of this section. Please continue all discusion there.

Thanks, BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 22:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello! Have you received the email I sent to U yesterday? Boraczek 22:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did and replied but after extensive attempt to discuss matters with Shorne I requested mediation which he refused and have now requested arbitration. You may join that request if you wish. I would need for another person to engage in attempts to discuss things with Shorne on his talk page before we could do a request for comment. You can still go ahead and do that if you wish, but probably better to add evidence to the arbitration case now. However, keep in mind that it can backfire and you yourself can be accused of edit warring, etc. Fred Bauder 22:33, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration cases take several months, expecially if I have recused myself. There will be plenty of time to consider evidence if the case is accepted. If you do add evidence, please be sure to include a link to the actual edit you are refering to so that the arbitrators can easily look at it. Fred Bauder 13:10, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I have sent you an email; I'm also leaving this message here to make sure you see it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is my official notice to you that you are to discuss disputes on the talk pages rather than simply reverting articles. If you violate this notice again, I shall take appropriate measures. Shorne 00:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When in your opinion did I violate this notice? Could you please specify? Boraczek 16:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

213.56.68.29 is one of many IPs used by Turrican, who no longer uses an account. He added some very questionable material to two of the history article, and I removed it in one case and added a dispute notice on another. As retaliation, he began reverting several random edits of mind, including simple copyedits, as well as vandalizing my user page, including putting a swastika and a wish that I die horribly on it. He has now run this guerrilla campaign for weeks, switching IP addresses periodically and reverting all sorts of edits. I asked the ArbCom to intervene, but they have done nothing - though they're coming after me. VeryVerily 09:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello Boraczek, I read that you have had your disagreements with Shorne. I am currently involved in an edit war with him in this topics: Abimael Guzman and Shining Path. As in other articles, he is continously whitewashing the terrorism of Guzman and Shining Path. I find it disgusting. But I am alone in this. Your help will be appreciated. If you know of anybody else that has had issues with Shorne, please tell him/her about this.--AAAAA 04:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stop following me around and spitefully reverting all of my changes. Shorne 21:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heh, maybe you shouldn't be so nasty to everybody who disagrees with you. Stan 22:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That reminds me of a story about a pot and a kettle. Shorne 22:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I cannot stop doing something I never did. Boraczek 16:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect me to believe that you just coincidentally took an interest in Boricua Popular Army a few hours after I edited it? And numerous other articles as well? You must think I'm awfully naïve.

Sometimes I check your contribution list to see if you have devastated some new articles. And if I notice some blatant POV-pushing or unsubstantiated deletions, I restore the original text or NPOVize the article. The statement that I "spitefully revert all of your changes" is far from being true. I never touched many of the articles you edited. And it has nothing to do with spite, I simply try to make Wikipedia better. Boraczek 17:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that you stalk me on Wikipedia. I suppose you now wish to claim enough knowledge of the Boricua Popular Army to evaluate my changes? Shorne 21:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if 'stalking' is a proper word, but, since it seems to me that you are a massive POV-pusher, I browsed your contribution list a few times. Is it against any Wikipedia policy or guideline? I think it turned out to be a good idea, because every time I did it, I discovered you had spoiled some new articles. And yes, I have enough knowledge of the BPA to evaluate your changes. If I hadn't have enough knowledge, I wouldn't have eidted the article. Boraczek 13:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation isn't going to succeed if you don't show—or develop—a bit of integrity. I warn you now that I shall press on immediately to arbitration if you continue your VeryVerilyesque shenanigans. Shorne 17:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you treat this mediation process as a step leading to arbitration (and an occasion for making unfounded accusations)? It's a pity. Boraczek 17:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope that the process will lead to something productive, for I do not enjoy wasting my time. If you refuse to be reasonable, however, I will have no choice but to request intervention. Shorne 21:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You might actually have a case of your own, since Shorne does make quite a few personal attacks on people. It's taken the ArbCom a long time to lower the boom on that behavior, but as you can see on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK, they're finally getting around to banning people for it - I think the list of RK's insults all collected in one place is what got their attention. In his short time on WP, Shorne has matched RK in volume and virulence of insult, and doesn't show any signs of being able to control himself. So, something to keep in mind. Stan 18:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not make personal attacks. What you're noticing is that I don't suffer fools gladly. Shorne 21:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're not, however, free to call them fools. I have a great many opinions about you personally for instance, and am ready to expound on them at length in private email to anybody, but aside from the occasional slipup, you won't find those opinions expressed anywhere in WP. Stan 06:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm prepared to apologise for any occasional slip-ups on my part. Shorne 12:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On Talk:The Great Terror:

• "You POV-pushing propagandists"
• "Your bias reeks from every pore"
• "Why don't you put your thinking cap on"

On Talk:Kulak:

• "Take the goddam cotton out of your ears (or your skull)"
• "If you're still too stubborn or too thick to understand it, I disclaim responsibility"

On Talk:Abimael Guzmán:

• "Obviously rationality is not your long suit"
• "your juvenile red-baiting"
• "I'm tired of casting pearls before swine"

On Talk:Ludo Martens:

• "your opinions—uninformed opinions at that, for I know damn well that you haven't read Martens's books"

There's plenty more, but I'm called to breakfast. Stan 14:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not one of those is an ad hominem attack. Shorne 14:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Believe what you like, but Wikipedia:No personal attacks is pretty specific, and it corresponds with the community norm. Note that the policy says "anywhere in Wikipedia" so that includes for instance User talk:Ruy Lopez, where you say of VV, "Evidently he's a racist", and this gem:

"No surprise that someone named Jimbo would bitch about someone else's anti-Americanism. I suppose he has a gun rack in his pickup truck and a plastic Jesus hanging from the rear-view mirror."

For someone who complains so vociferously about other people's biases and stereotypes, it sure seems to flow pretty readily from your own fingers. Stan 16:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your mediation with Shorne is now underway; please see the subpage at RFM created for this purpose to participate. -- Grunt   ҈  01:08, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I just took a look at the collectivization in USSR article and it is biased, we should do something about it. I'll try to do some serious edits to it tomorrow. 209.197.155.38

I guess you cant do any edits to that article, nm 209.197.155.38

1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

--mav 21:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moze cie zainteresowac dzialanosc naszego Wikiprojektu: Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland. Ostatnio pracujemy m.in. nad Polish-Soviet War i chronologiczna-tematyczna hierarchia artykylow Polskich Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_Poland/Periodization. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe that I have already asked you repeatedly to stop saying that I have a "similar political orientation" to that of Shorne. The next time that I hear this stated as a matter of fact, I will likley fill out an RCF or take this matter to the dispute resolution process. 172 21:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you never asked me to stop saying that your political orientation is similar to that of Shorne. I believe what I said was true and relevant information. Boraczek 22:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I never asked you on talk pages, but I asked I did so on others. Instead of assuming bad faith, you could've asked me to elaborate on my comments. I wrote those comments on Stan Sheb's page based on his treatment of me, which I'd long found rude and condescending, and thus similar to what Shorne was stating on the talk page. 172 18:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I maintain you never asked me.

I appreciate your impartiality in exercising admin rights (AFAIK you never abuse your powers), but from my point of view your reaction to Stan's complaint cast doubt on your impartiality in judgment on disputes and arbitrator's judgements should not be affected by his past personal conflicts and political differences. Boraczek 23:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between making a comment in passing on a talk page, which we are free to do, and exercising admin or arbitrator responsibilities. As a stated on David Vasquez's page, I understand that my own biases surrounding a user must be irrelevant to my understanding of what a user has the capacity to offer our community if I am serving on the committee. [[2] Thus, I can respect Stan as a valued contributor, although he is certainly not one of the users with whom I enjoy interacting. In the event that I could not see beyond past personal conflicts as an arbitrator, I would just recuse myself from the case. Keep in mind that this is not uncommon. Some of the current members of the Arbitration Committee recuse themselves all the time. Fred Bauder, e.g., recuses himself all the time, particularly from the cases involving Shorne. 172 00:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you say is insightful. Still, I don't think your reaction to Stan's complaint was appropriate for an admin and a candidate for the seat in the ArbCom. Your comment created the impression that you encouraged insulting. Well, if my future contacts with you don't give me reason to doubt your ability to transcend your bias, I will come to the conclusion that that was nothing more than a single and casual comment. I will shade my disendorsement a little bit. Boraczek 09:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chaning your comments to 'I think that they share the same political orientation' hardly constitutes 'shading your disendorsement'. The attacks on that page accusing me of advancing a Communist agenda on Wikipedia should be seen as ludicrous by all fair-minded users reasonably informed on Russian and Soviet politics. Perhaps no other user has added more detail to Wikpedia articles demonstrating how the Soviet system empowered informal, illegitimate powers networks in order to run its leading institutions, and how these tendencies inherent in the Soviet system were continued following that system's collapse, thus explaining why market and democratic reform strategies went wrong in Russia, than I have. This can be seen by reading the articles to which I have contributed linked on my user page. I unapologetically admit, though, that the framework through which I write about Russian politics is more subtle and nuanced than to what what many Wiki users are accustomed. However, as an academic I understand that this is the only workable approach, and that it is intellectually and academically inappropriate for an encyclopedia to have articles reading like hysterical Cold War-era anticommunism. 172 21:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. Distorting the text I wrote and you quoted does not prove subtlety.

2. The rest of your message seems to have nothing to do with my comment. I criticized you for encouraging insults, not for your contribution to articles. Boraczek 22:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I am complaining about the fact that you left "I suspect that 172 and Shorne share the same political orientation' in your disendorsement statement; your statment still claims that you suspect that I am backing Shorne against Stan Shebs because of political reasons. 172 07:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that political reasons play an important role. In your comment on Shorne's talk page you said that Stan was not a full-time member of the rightwing clique that has been reverting your [Shorne's] work at random. This phrase suggests that you perceive the conflict in political terms: Shorne and you vs the "rightwing clique". Boraczek 17:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I said that because you have indeed been reverting Shorne's work at random. 172 23:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I opposed Shorne's POV-pushing. It was not me, but Shorne who reverted perpetually and sometimes blindly. If you had not been biased, you would have not backed Shorne and you would have not attributed right wing views to me, when you had no idea what my real political views were. Your bias was clearly visible and your comment suggested political reasons. Boraczek 00:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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 2000 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 (| talk)

Hello, Boraczek! Thought you might be interested in the Russian wikipedians' notice board. Come check it out! KNewman 04:47, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I noticed that your comment on the arbitration talk page was posted twice, so I erased the second copy (it was identical except the timestamp was one minute later). Just letting you know. (P.s. I eventually replied to you on Talk:Theta role.) VeryVerily 18:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alas, I probably won't be contributing to linguistics or anything else anytime soon. The ArbCom in their infinite wisdom is about to cut me off. VeryVerily 21:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Boraczek, unfortunately topics concerning the Balkans have been, are and will be a battlefield, there are far too many conflicting viewpoints, not only about Macedonia, but also about Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sandjak. If I have been sharper to you than usual during the discussion, I am certainly appologising for that. And I am certainly willing to accept edits which are impersonal, impartial and based on co-operation. However, I am not willing to accept and I will not accept personally motivated and POV edits such as you made in the past - and which were also criticised and qualified by other users as questionable. I also don't accept the phrase "demolish" with regard to the article Demographics of Poland where I used the same sources as you used for Greece and Bulgaria (apart from minority claims which I regard as clearly offensive but which you did not hesitate in the least to use against Bulgaria, did you?) This is, of course, unless you admit hereby that your aim was to "demolish" the articles about Bulgaria and Greece... If I may, I would advise you that you work on your diplomacy with regard to sensitive issues such as the Macedonian question where both Greece and Macedonia, as well as Bulgaria have overlapping and extremely conflicting viewpoints. I have not allowed myself to scream around on the pages Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia that the Macedonians are ethnic Bulgarians - such as my viewpoint is - as I regard this attitude as offensive. How did you allow yourself to do the same??? Regards VMORO 14:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)~

I haven't seen you on Polish Wikipedians' notice board - you are more then welcome to drop in! PS. For listing known languages, you may want to use Wikipedia:Babel templates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Any particular reason to change 'dialect' to 'idiom' in the language list article? That use is now archaic or close to it. "Lects" might work, but that's pretty obscure, and 'dialects' is factually correct. kwami 01:47, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Actually, maybe it isn't so bad. I could get used to it. kwami 01:49, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Hi again,

Just noticed this on your page. What are the Gajica letters, and do you know their history? Was Polish once written as Czech is now? kwami 01:53, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:ForRobin.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --gren グレン 11:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering what's up with your picture of the Balkan peninsula according to the Danube-Sava-Kupa line. If you look at the history of the image (here), your original version of the image does not appear to follow the line and it also has some odd holes in Dalmatia. Your second version, however, seems to be correct. Would you be so kind as to clarify this and note this in the image's discussion page so that we know which version you see as correct, since you are the author of both. I just want to prevent confusion on which version to revert back to. Thanks! edolen1 12:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Balkan peninsula.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Longhair 09:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help find out if the correct name of Barbara Johnson is Basia Piasecka or Barbara Piasecka. I cant find out if her birth name was Basia or if Basia is a nickname. Someone keeps reverting Basia to Barbara and I need an authoratative source. Can you see if you can find someone else If you cant help? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SEEurope-small2.jpg. 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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, mi esprimo in lingua italiana perchè è quella che meglio conosco e mi rivolgo a te che conosci questa lingua. Penso che tu abbia la competenza per intervenire in talk:Josip Broz Tito: puoi dare un'occhiata dalla sezione intitolata Tag in poi? Se leggi alcune parti di questa pagina dall'inizio ti rendi conto che molti utenti contestano la faziosità di alcuni redattori iugoslavi che esaltano Tito come leader non dictator e gli attribuiscono solo meriti non ammettendo le sue responsabilità riguardo Bleiburg massacre, foibe massacres e istrian exodus nonchè OZNA e UDBA: tali utenti sono in particolare l'amministratore croato Dijxtra con lo sloveno Zocky e i serbi Dcabrilo e Zivan56. Tali utenti, anche se non lo dichiarano, sembrano comunisti fanatici e Dijxtra mi ha bloccato per un giorno perchè ho definito Zivan56 un bugiardo. Ho visto che stai contribuendo alla voce foibe in lingua slovena: ma in tale articolo si capisce chi infoibava e chi era infoibato? Dunque t'invito a lasciare un commento in tale pagina di discussione riguardo un articolo che alcuni titoisti pretendono di trasformare in testo di esaltazione del dittatore come esige il culto della personalità. Sai che io detesto tutti i totalitarismi e tutti i dittatori! Ciao,--PIO 12:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have often heard and read that Polish people have a link with Croats. Not just catholic religion. Some say Croats came from Poland ...area Crakhow which means Croat. Also a USA census once showed thousnads of people who came from Poland said they were Polish Croats. I have also heard of towns eg something like Gradska in Poland has Nova(new) Gradska in Croatia which clearly shows Croats were from Poland and set up new towns after leaving Polish ones.

I have heard the joke Serbs say to Croats "You're all Polish". Must be truth to it

Do you know something??

Jagoda 1 03:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, penso che la conflittualità con alcuni utenti slavi comunisti sia inevitabile. In particolare l'utente DIREKTOR sta rovinando molti articoli e io non posso più modificarli poichè son stati bloccati agli utenti non registrati: io non posso registrarmi per problemi tecnici. Tu essendo registrato puoi modificarli: mi riferisco a foibe massacres, Istrian exodus, Tito, History of Dalmatia, Zadar e altri. Puoi anche intervenire commentando qui. Cordiali saluti, LEO 20 luglio 2007

Hello, Boraczek. You have new messages at Talk:History of the term Vlach.
Message added 22:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You may wish to participate to the discussion. We need sources for the table Codrin.B (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Istro-Romanian language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boraczek. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

Hello, Boraczek. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boraczek. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]