You are the former anonymous contributor from Talk:Jozef Pilsudski, aren't you? Thanks for registering and thanks for your contributions so far. BTW, you can sign your comments with ~~~ or ~~~~, wiki software automatically converts that to your nick-name. Halibutt 11:52, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hi

I see the modifications you made to the creativity page - two additional references.

Extra references are good, and I have a few hundred references on creativity I could add myself, but since space is short I'm wondering if you could elaborate a little on why the references apparently about aesthetics should be added to an article on creativity?

Thanks for your thoughts on this!

LMackinnon 10:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creative individuals such as Albert Einstein have noted an aesthetic aspect to their work. Scientists and mathematicians have commented that a certain theory or theorem is so beautiful that it must be true.

Władysław Tatarkiewicz's History of Six Ideas presents the most comprehensive historical survey that I've seen on the concept of creativity. His book also highlights links between creativity and other central concepts in western thought which seem worth bringing to the attention of the broad public. logologist|Talk 10:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the assertion that creativity and aesthetics are linked. Poincare made perhaps one of the earliest systematic arguments to this effect in his 1908 essay on Mathematical Creation. In addition the work

Alexenberg, M. L. (1981), Aesthetic Experience in Creative Process, Bar-Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan, Israel.

elaborates the theme and argument in detail, in relation to both the arts and sciences.

What I was asking about was what was in the work you cited. I had a look on Amazon.Com -

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9024722330/sr=8-1/qid=1146222357/ref=sr_1_1/102-8610456-7581758?%5Fencoding=UTF8

and the summaries seemed to be overwhelmingly about aesthetics and art.

I would be interested if you could summarise what he had to say about creativity in his review, and why it is better to include than other detailed reviews of the history of creativity where the whole focus is on creativity. Also I'm interested in what he takes to be significant in the history of creativity between the Greeks and say Poincare in 1908. For example, Da Vinci as far as I know spoke little about his creative process - like others in that time, he tended to get on with it rather than talk about it.

I don't have a problem with you including the ref (I tend to think that it's better to let people's contributions stand unless they are obviously wrong or inappropriate for the page or poorly written) but I would be interested to hear what he had to say about creativity - and whether it is worth me chasing it up.

BTW, good work with your recent corrections - including many grammatical things fixed.

LMackinnon 11:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed in the article ("History of the term and the concept") some historic material that you specifically express interest in. Tatarkiewicz has a good deal more to say about creativity that I find illuminating. logologist|Talk 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I saw. I disagree with you/him about the Greeks. My understanding is that they looked as creativity as 'inspiration' from the Muse or from the Gods. I don't have time to chase up scholarly links, but see e.g.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/charles57/Creative/Brain/greek.htm
http://www.silverbranchcenter.com/Creativity.html

I didn't have a great deal of familiarity with the rest of the history covered. In any case, I was thinking about whether it's a good idea to have both this history and the timeline, or whether they could be incorporated together.

I've chased up the book through my uni library to see if they can get it in. Thanks for your elaboration of the history, or one author's view of it! <g> LMackinnon 09:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the creativity article, I am asking for comment on Talk:Creativity about creating a new History of Creativity page, and moving the sections "History of the term and the concept" and "Periods and Personalities" into it. I would put a short summary and link on the main page. This would allow us to expand on the history without worrying about making the main article too long. Do you have an opinion on this? I would appreciate your input, especially since you wrote most (if not all) of the history section. Thanks. --BrettRob 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really call him my hero. Anyway, it's not so easy to find a picture of him, especially a non-copyrighted one. I put it on Wikipedia:Requested pictures#People for now. Perhaps, it would be better to expand the stub first. – Kpalion 23:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Jozef Pilsudski for details. :) [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:50, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my grammar. I have several notes on your version, check Talk:Battle of Warsaw (1920) for reference. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:58, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't log in for a while, and so I didn't notice your message (even though i've been making edits). I took the photo and make it available for the article. How should I credit this?

Update: Done! I just reuploaded the image with the appropriate copyright information :).

Are you sure of the English titles at Stefan Zeromski? Or rather: are these indeed English titles or rather English translations of Polish titles? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:07, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ashes and Faithful River have appeared under those literally-translated English titles. Most of the other titles have been Englished by me.

Thanks for your corrections in the abovementioned article. Your style and BrE are, as always, exceptionally good. I must say I envy your English :) [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 09:24, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

This is close to FA, I'd appreciate your input. Plz take a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Articles#Help needed for most current discussion of this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Serious problem here. I have been more then one year at Wiki and haven't seen anything like that. Some admin edited the article, in talk wrote that he can't be bothered to read it all but Poles are natinalistic hero-worshippers etc., and locked the page. Please read the discussion and state your opinion at Talk:Polish-Soviet_War. Much tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid that Renationalization means something totally different, i.e., nationalization after previous privatization. Mikkalai 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...a wezme cala reke :> Tnx for work on PLCommonwealth. I'd be happy if you could go over Witold Pilecki now, as I think he is good enough to be FAC soon. I've emailed several websites with related pics asking for permission to use their images, and hopefully in few days great Witold will receive his much deserved spotlight. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please avoid overlinking. Thank you. Mikkalai 00:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd be careful with that, it seems to me like a rather POVed advice. Somebody doesn't like overlinking...but I, for example, would be more ofraid of underlinking. I had to add many important links to Pilecki article, that are defiently (IMHO...) important. Please don't remove important links. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What I am talking about, is than you should not make the same link within 3-5 sentence span. I am against the extreme mode when a single link per term per article is enforced. Common sense should be a direction. Mikkalai 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure. You know what they say...Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand your technical question :< --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Medical University" is suo nomine so You can't change it. Radomil 13:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After reform of 1950 faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy of Polish universities were excluded to seperate school called Akademie Medyczne which is oficially translated into English as "Medical Univerities". In fact there are many types of medical schools in Poland, and only some of them are called Univerities. Radomil 13:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure no problem. After all you're my language guru :)

However, I wonder why couln't you move the article yourself? It's quite easy, just click the move button above the article and... that's it. Halibutt 16:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hello there!

I could be wrong, but I don't think that Wiki titles should have quotation marks around them. Shouldn't this be simply Mold of the Earth ? Jeff Knaggs|Talk 09:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your redaction of my (and others) articles. You are doing a tremendous job. Just one nitpick - sometimes you tend to use strange, rare words, which perhaps are not the best choice for an average reader. Personally I try to keep to those guidelines, what do you think about them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Like Orwell, I believe in using common words, short words, and the fewest words that will do the job. Sometimes, however, the mot juste may be neither common nor short. Then the reader has an opportunity to learn a new and useful word (which regrettably, as in the case of "awesome," all too often becomes 'too common). Logologist 16:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Swietnie ze napisales Becka, poszukam jeszcze jakies zdjecie do niego.--Emax 11:07, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, an excellent article - as always... Halibutt 14:28, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Czy moglbys mnie poprzec w dyskusji Anti-Polonism ? Nie wiem z jakich pobudek, ale Balcer probuje storpetowac caly artykul.--Emax 17:46, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I turned your comment at Talk:Battle of Warsaw (1920) into an article at Belweder. Hope you don't mind :) Halibutt 11:46, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yup. People even forgot the old name of that palace and start calling it "pałac prezydencki"... As to Belweder - after refurbishment some years ago it is being used as a residence for important guests of either president or premier. However, most of VIPs nowadays prefer to staying hotels and the palace remains empty most of the time. At times important medals are awarded there, but AFAIK Kwaśniewski prefers the Royal Castle for that. They planned to organise there some museum, but the project never started.

As to my plans - I don't know, perhaps I will start no new projects. In the past I started too many projects that need correction/expansion: Polish Secret State, battles of 1939, battles of 1920, battles of 1831, Polish Film School, Home Army...

By the way, would you mind if I asked you of your personal background? I'm curious since apparently you understand Polish, but your English is far better than of any of my friends here. Do you live in UK? (it's sheer curiosity, I won't mind if you stick to your monastic anonymity, as you put it :) --Halibutt 10:34, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Zdjecia pochodza z oficjalnej strony prezydenta i niestety nie sa tam opisane. Moze znajdzie sie ktos kto kiedys byl w srodku i je opisze :)--Emax 13:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

A nie, sorry zdjecia pochodza ze strony Wojciechowskich [1], stworzylem stub Palac Saski, moze Cie zainteresuje :)--Emax 15:07, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Zgadzam sie palac saski byl jedna z perelek Warszawy, mam rowniez nadzieje ze jak najszybciej bedzie odbudowany. Co do zdjecia Belwederu postaram sie znalesc - jest jedno z Narutowiczem i Pilsudskim w artykule Gabriel_Narutowicz, ale w srodku, i praktycznie nie pokazuje nawet pomieszczenia w jakim siedza.--Emax 14:45, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Good work on Marian Rejewski! (And if you're in the mood, Jerzy Różycki and Henryk Zygalski now look a little threadbare by comparison...) Best regards, — Matt Crypto 12:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, good work on Ultra, an article that's long been overdue some attention! I thought I'd ask your opinion on an idea I had for the division of material between Enigma machine, Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, and Ultra. Several months ago, when Enigma machine was nominated for Featured Article, it had material on everything, from this history and operation of the machine, to the history of its decryption, to the effect of the intelligence on WWII. The problem was that the article was getting a little huge, so I went in and carved out everything to do with cryptanalysis – both techniques and the "codebreaker's history" – and created a new article, Cryptanalysis of the Enigma. I also moved the intelligence stuff here to Ultra. Since then, I've only really worked on polishing the original Enigma machine article, which was left with the details of the machine, its variants, its usage procedures etc. I haven't taken the time to work on Ultra, but ultimately I'd like to merge most of the cryptanalysis-story parts (Bletchley Park, Biuro Szyfrów, etc) into Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, and leave this article to focus primarily on the intelligence. I propose that Ultra would include things like all the major battles and events that Ultra is known to have played a part in, the nature of Ultra intelligence, how it was distributed, conjectures about significance of Ultra on WWII, and so on. But the article would omit most of the story of how Enigma (and other systems) were broken, both in terms of techniques and people involved. This way, we avoid relating the same detail in duplicate in several different articles, but (hopefully) tell it well in just one article. Do you think this sounds reasonable? — Matt Crypto 11:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know that your work on Rejewski (etc) was noted in a project digest: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography/February 2005. Thanks! — Matt Crypto 13:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dodalem zdjecia do trzech muszkieterow polskiej kryptologii--Emax 15:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Logologist --- thanks for your contributions to the Sikorski article.. but I've a simple favour to ask...would you be so kind as to start including edit summaries when you make non-minor changes? Especially when you make bunches....you may also find it helpful to get in the habit of always previewing. It will help everyone else out quite a bit. Thanks Fawcett5 14:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Logologist, from Roylee's talk page I gather that you have called several of his additions into question, only to get a vague and evasive response. I just want to let you know that several other editors have come across this user's pseudohistoric and disruptive edits. See the history of Roylee's talk page (he keeps blanking it despite several editors questioning his behaviour) and see my exchange with Roylee which I preserved at my talk page. Regards, – mark ✎ 12:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you have no further comments on language or content, I will nominate the article by Monday. I have added all info I thought is needed - history, features, aftermath, etc. Looks good, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Czesc. Widzialem ze wstawiles kilka przetlumaczonych wierszy Krasickiego, posiadasz moze ten? --Witkacy 00:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bajki i przypowieści

• WSTĘP DO BAJEK

• Był młody, który życie wstrzemięźliwie pędził;
• Był stary, który nigdy nie łajał, nie zrzędził;
• Był bogacz, który zbiorów potrzebnym udzielał;
• Był autor, co się z cudzej sławy rozweselał;
• Był celnik, który nie kradł; szewc, który nie pijał;
• Żołnierz, co się nie chwalił; łotr, co nie rozbijał;
• Był minister rzetelny, o sobie nie myślał;
• Był na koniec poeta, co nigdy nie zmyślał.
• - A cóż to jest za bajka? Wszystko to być może!
• - Prawda, jednakże ja to między bajki włożę.

Niema sprawy, jak cos znajde podam linka. Mozliwe ze na tej stronie http://monika.univ.gda.pl/~literat/books.htm kiedys sie pojawia wiersze etc, w jezyku angielskim. Narazie sa tylko biogramy.--Witkacy 04:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dzieki za wstawienie :)--Witkacy 02:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. And, as a result, I had a pleasant morning, creating two Canopus articles and disambiguating another 30 or so. –Hajor 22:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

zapraszam.--Witkacy 13:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Po prawej zostawilem Ci maly kwadracik (Shortcut), link WNBP prowadzi na skroty do celu :) A caly link to Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board.--Witkacy 04:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I jak znalazles droge do polskiego zajazdu? Jeszcze cos Krasickiego, co by sie przydalo po ang. moze gdzies na to wpadniesz:

• Niósł ślepy kulawego, dobrze im się działo;
• Ale że to ślepemu nieznośne się zdało,
• Iż musiał zawżdy słuchać, co kulawy prawi,
• Wziął kij w rękę: "Ten - rzecze - z szwanku nos wybawi".
• Idą; a wtem kulawy krzyknie: "Umknij w lewo!"
• Ślepy wprost i, choć z kijem, uderzył łbem w drzewo.
• Idą dalej; kulawy przestrzega od wody -
• Ślepy w bród: sakwy zmaczał, nie wyszli bez szkody*
• Na koniec, przestrzeżony, gdy nie mijał dołu,
• I ślepy, i kulawy zginęli pospołu.
• -I ten winien, co kijem bezpieczeństwo mierzył,
• -I ten, co bezpieczeństwa głupiemu powierzył.

--Witkacy 22:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dzieki za wiersz, w ramach wdziecznosci, zimne piwko czeka na Ciebie w polskiej kanciapie ;)--Witkacy 06:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dzieki za poprawki na mojej stronie. Moze Cie zainteresuje - stworzylem kategorie "wiersze" na Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Poland z pomyslem by wstawiac tam co tydzien lub dwa jakis polski wiersz. [2].--Witkacy 12:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you could check this out, see if anything can be improved - I plan PR and FAC for it soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Moglbys dac glos na zostawienie - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism dzieki--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

Please vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland. --Ttyre 17:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your edit on Asymmetric warfare. This information belongs to separate article where more details could be given. Pavel Vozenilek 21:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard Science Studies being termed 'logology'. Could you be mistaken? A Google Scholar search implies that the term can be used for the study of knowledge more generally; but not the study of scientific knowledge, which is surely different from other forms of knowledge production.--Nicholas 17:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... when you edit articles. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

..for corrections :) at PL/SU war. Cheers, --Irpen 00:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I remember, there's no [h] in Polish IPA at all. In fact in modern Polish the sound is barely ever used - and if ever, it's more or less correspondent to the hardest "h" you can imagine, similar to the Ukrainian sound. On the contrary, the standard "ch" (and "h" as well) are simply put down as phoneme [x] (or arch-phoneme [X]).

As to the wikiquote tables - I fixed it, it should work now (be sure to refresh your browser). BTW, thanks for your corrections to all the articles I've been working on. Good to have you here :) Halibutt 11:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the Prus thingie. However, I have no idea as to what might've happened to the Constitution. Perhaps you could ask the admins there? Halibutt 11:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Witaj ! Ciesze sie, ze znalazles chwile by dodac nieco informacji do tego szablonu. Dopracowalem go jeszcze przed chwila,juz raczej pod katem graficznym. Wydaje mi sie, ze teraz jest bardziej przejrzysty, ponadto usunalem powtarzajace sie linki do Biura Szyfrow, zostawiajac jeden najwaniejszy. Ustawilem takze Sekcje 3 jako link, moze ktos napisze nieco na temat szyfrow rosyjskich, moze ja, jesli znajde czas :). Pozdrawiam Listowy 11:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you adduce a reference for the assertion you added to Gresham's Law? I don't see it in the existing refs. --Maru (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Maru (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote: it was not my addition by user:Jeffq's change] - you should ask him.

Wikisource: I was sure I made some redirects once. Oh well, found it tnx to the the links on Polish wikipedia. It was not easy - apparently it was removed by the vandal, so if I didn't remebered it was there, I might have been dead stopped myself. Here is the Polish text and here is the English version. Btw, what is really strange is that my account on Wikisource apparently got deleted (?). Strangerer and strangerer... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Alphax ^τεχ 06:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Logologist. As a courtesy to your fellow editors, please start using edit summaries. Thank you. Nick Graves 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this edit seems pretty valid and reasonable. They've put a lot of effort to find the grave. --Lysy ^(talk) 07:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that on several occasions you reverted my work on converting the book references to manual of style format templates. What is the reason behind that? And may I ask you not to do it again? After all it takes time to do that and it's quite frustrating to see that someone reverts it without explanation or any reason given.

Cheers, Halibutt 20:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a better title. So do Coastal cities events and possibly March 1968 events (see article's talk pages). Any suggestions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote on my RfA. Halibutt 07:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, nazwa Pałac na Wodzie jest niepoprawna. To taka nielogiczność językowa, która przyjęła się w gwarze warszawiaków, więc nic złego w tym, że moja babcia tak mówiła. Ale generalnie ten pałac jest zbudowany na wyspie i tak się oficjalnie nazywa. Zresztą sprawdź tutaj. --SylwiaS 08:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gralinski, Rozycki and Smolenski.jpg
Witaj, zdecydowalem ostatecznie oznaczyc ta fotografie jako "PD". Aczkolwiek bede ja obserwowal, w razie gdyby pojawily sie nowsze informacje-ponad to, co dotychczas ustalilismy, wtedy mozna dokonac modyfikacji. Pozdrawiam, Listowy 12:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gwiazdeczka dla Pana, a przy okazji polecam Wikipedia:Babel, przydatna rzecz. Aha - zerknij na Talk:Christianization_of_Poland przy okazji.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You surely deserved it! Halibutt 02:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it is far from controversial, so I went aheed, deleted the redirect (which has almost no history) and moved the article. Rembember one thing about moves - avoid 'double redirects' (there are some from the communist moves - you need to check what links here (like [Special:Whatlinkshere/Pozna%C5%84_1956_protests here]) and fix all former redirects, cause Wiki want follow more then one redirect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wisła: done. In future, see Wikipedia:Requested moves if I am not around.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nyah, patience is for pensioners :) Thanks again. Halibutt 06:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

My copy of Kozaczuk's Enigma book is due back to the library in a week or so; before then, I wondered if you were interested in a joint effort to get Marian Rejewski featured? I don't think it's far off. — Matt Crypto 10:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mam coś takiego:

Po upadku powstania - podobnie jak wielu innych oficerów i żołnierzy Wojska Polskiego - musiał udać się na emigrację. W początkowym okresie swego pobytu na obczyźnie, z polecenia generała Bema organizował szlak ewakuacyjny dla polskich powstańców z Prus do Francji. Był komendantem punktu etapowego w Bambergu k. Monachium - jednego z pięciu punktów, jakie znajdowały się na trasie przemarszu powstańców.

Jak przetłumaczyć punkt etapowy?--SylwiaS 12:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sądzę, "staging point." Jest to po angielsku bardziej jednoznaczne, niż "stage." W tym wypadku kalka chyba najlepiej wypada. Analogicznie istnieje podobny wyraz "staging area." logologist 15:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dzięki. A "niezależny sekundnik"?--SylwiaS 15:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czy można poprosić o kontekst? "Sekundnik" u zegarka (np. firmy Patek-Philippe) będzie zapewne "second hand" ale nie bardzo wiem, co to jest "niezależny sekundnik" – "independent second hand"? logologist 19:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pewnie,ale nie wiem, czy to pomoże:

Spośród zastosowanych przez firmę nowatorskich rozwiązań technicznych najważniejszymi były: naciąg za pomocą koronki (1841 r.) i niezależny sekundnik ( 1846 r.), a także rozpoczęcie produkcji zegarków naręcznych, które obecnie zdominowały wszystkie inne rodzaje zegarków.

"Naciąg za pomocą koronki" to jest chyba "key-less winding mechanism". W każdym razie coś takiego znalazłam na stronie muzeum.--SylwiaS 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Może dawniej sekundnik w ogóle nie istniał? A "naciąg" czy nie był również używany do nastawiania – nie tylko do "nakręcania" ("winding") – zegarka? logologist 23:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tak nakręcanie i nastawianie. Chodzi o to, że wcześniej były kluczyki, którymi się te zagarki nakręcało, a Patek Philippe wprowadził takie, które działają na takiej samej zasadzie jak teraz. Nakręcać kluczykiem trzeba było bardzo często, a cały mechanizm był dużo większy i zegarek wyglądał jak jajko (tyle dziś wyczytałam). Ze wskazówką, to chyba masz rację, bo przeczytałam również, że wcześniej jej nie było, bo i tak nie można było precyzyjnie zmierzyć czasu. Czyli "second hand" czy "second wing"?--SylwiaS 02:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tu jest coś co się nazywa "split second hand" [3]. Może to o to chodzi?--SylwiaS 02:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wskazówka w zegarku – czy to sekundnik, czy minutnik (?) – to po angielsku "hand". Czyli: "second hand". O "split second hand" dotąd nie słyszałem; wątpię, czy coś bardziej skomplikowanego, jak po prostu "second hand" wymyślono już w 1839 r. – 150 lat przed ukazaniem się owego "Calibre 1989".

Dziękuję za ciekawe wiadomości z dziejów zegarka! logologist 03:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bardzo proszę i dziękuję za pomoc. Dokończę jutro, bo próbowałam tłumaczyć związki Patka z Polską z francuskiego. Od tego głowa pęka! :D--SylwiaS 04:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this? I think this is the solution for our ills.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Contract Sejm was partially translated from Polish, though I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with the title. Any ideas? Halibutt 13:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I simply forgot what is the English term for tura wyborów. As to references - I'll see what I can do. Halibutt 11:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to trespass on your turf :) as your command of English is much superior to mine, but can you breake a machine? Perhaps it would sound better as 'broke the Enigma code'? When I see just 'broke the Enigma', I have this vision of him picking up the machine and smashing it to pieces :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "broke the Enigma," but "broke Enigma": i.e., broke the Enigma cipher – the cipher produced using the Enigma machine.

In any case, it's Enigma cipher. Please don't do what our Anglophone friends too often insist on doing: blurring the very basic distinction between a "code" and a "cipher." logologist 05:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete my comment [4]unwillingly or it wasn't as witty as I though? --SylwiaS | talk 19:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly didn't delete it. I think it's a wonderful comment! Could you put it back in? logologist 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lysy already put it for me. Glad you liked it!--SylwiaS | talk 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a direct link to your talk page in your signature? It saves a few seconds when one wants to leave you a message :) See Wikipedia:Signature for 'how to'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Signature#Customizing_your_signature. Consider adding something like [[User:Logologist|Logologist]] | [[User_talk:Logologist|Talk]] to your preferences signature field (and turn on 'raw signatures') for the following effect: Logologist | Talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, I want to create an article about Statuty piotrkowskie--should I call it "Statutes of Piotrków" or "Piotrków Statutes"? Appleseed (Talk) 18:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Piotrków Statutes," analogously to "Magdeburg Law," "Nuremberg Laws," etc. In most cases, I think, extraneous words like "of" should be avoided. Also, "Piotrków" is a more specific word in this context than "Statutes" and therefore, in English, is better placed first. logologist 23:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Logologist, I don't mean to nitpick, but from what I understand ca (no period) is a valid abbreviation of circa. Also, I think it's best not to add a period to every item in a list. Appleseed (Talk) 20:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of taste. I usually find a period after an abbreviation more satisfying. In some countries, one abbreviates "mister," "doctor," etc. (!) with a period; in some, without. A period after each item in a listing gives me more of a sense of completion.

But feel free to dump the periods where you see fit, if it doesn't diminish clarity.

Oh, could you try untangling the Mieszko IV Tanglefoot article? I find the text confusing, especially the final sentence. logologist 21:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which sentence--"You can help Wikipedia by expanding it"? :) If you're referring to the "Mieszko I" part, I guess that was his ordinal as Duke of Opole, what with the whole numbering mess during the period of fragmentation. One of these days I'm going to redo all the Polish monarchs articles. In the meantime, we can always steal from the Polish WP. Appleseed (Talk) 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at first I didn't notice the ordinal disparity. Sounds good. logologist 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove other user's comments from talk pages. --bainer (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whose comments did I remove? logologist 05:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess he refers to this. Edit conflict?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in question must have been deleted accidentally or by someone other than me.

I tried creating a "direct link to [my] talk page" and turning on "raw signatures," per your suggestion. Did it work? logologist|Talk 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it works - tnx! But it looks like john's comments were deleted again and he is pointing the finger at you. It would be good if you could solve this (who deleted them) before somebody begings to be really offended.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take your comment on Talk:Partitions of Poland to mean that you would also be in favour of a Use correct names, redirect from common names policy? ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 13:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If in this case "correct name" signifies "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" – yes, definitely. I think that is the logical and truthful solution. (Indeed, given that option, I don't understand the opposition to "official" use of correct names!) logologist|Talk 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered similar problems with getting East Timor to be at Timor-Leste, yes... ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 15:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the presumption should be that an individual, monarch, country or subdivision of a country should be called by its authentic name. That is the approach I've taken in Talk:List of Polish monarchs, "Proposal," and in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, "Terminology."

Using "common names" too often introduces inconsistencies in nomenclature, patronizes readers as well as the "translated" entity, and distorts perceptions of history.

I hope a broader review of the "common names policy" will eventually be undertaken. logologist|Talk 21:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As do I, yes. ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 23:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calling her "Queen Jadwiga" seems inconsistent, since the other monarchs don't have "King" prepended to their names. I would also say it's slightly inaccurate, since she was crowned Rex. I say "slightly" because in Polish she is often called Królowa Jadwiga, so that isn't so clear-cut either. How about we call her Jadwiga Angevin? This would match the Polish Jadwiga Andegaweńska, and conform to our current naming of monarchs such as Aleksander Jagiellon and Anna Jagiellon.

If Jadwiga Andegaweńska is one of the accepted Polish usages, then that is doubtless an ideal solution. Incidentally, I've the impression (I haven't checked this) that Christina of Sweden was another female "king." logologist|Talk 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding August II, I strongly support keeping "the Strong"--even the German WP calls him that. I'll have to think about August III. Appleseed (Talk) 16:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Please let me know if you see problems with any of the other anglicizations. ("Bolesław V the Chaste," for example?) You seem to have an exceptional sense for equivalents in translating between the two languages. logologist|Talk 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with the exception of Zbigniew, I am still not happy with sigle names for them. Also, I moved Władysław to Władysław IV Vasa and Jan to Jan II Kazimierz Vasa, since they should be the same as Zygmunt III Vasa (we should be consistent). Please take care of all the double redirects, if you would be so kind.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not merge them and make one into a redirect?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does one do it? logologist|Talk 01:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. It's really simple: copy&paste&edit info from the page you want gone into the one you think has the proper title, then when all the info is moved, just delete the content of the old page and replace it with a redirect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you'd take care of double redirects left after my delete/move actions per your requests? If not, let me know, as people are complaing about the DR. In other news, it may not be up your alley, but very few people have came through RfC I posted about History of the World, and there is a slow but pointless revert war there (see Talk:History_of_the_World#Graph_straw_poll), so I am now down to asking fellow Wikipedians to take a look if they have time and will - I'd appreciate any comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, I don't think there is anything special that needs to be done.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The memorial in Bydgoszcz is pretty new, 2005. --Lysy ^(talk) 15:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niezły bałagan tu jest teraz. Pomorze Zachodnie to co innego niż województwo zachodniopomorskie. Trzeba to wszystko popoprawiać, a nazwy województw powinny zostać po angielsku, tak łatwiej czytelnikom w tym języku. Pzdr Gdarin | talk 17:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Logologist, I see you were able to straighten out the Oda articles while I was on break from WP--thanks. Appleseed (Talk) 23:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mam pytanie dot. listy Polaków. W głównej liście jest categoria Fine Arts. Oprócz tego istnieje osobna lista Polish painters. Ale nie ma żadnej innej. W związku z tym lista artystów w List of famous Poles robi się za długa i nie ma ich gdzie przenieść. Jaka nazwa byłaby dobra na osobną listę grupującą różnych artystów. List of Polish Fine Artists?--SylwiaS | talk 21:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by "arts" or "fine arts" you mean painting, sculpture, photography and the like, and excluding performing arts, music, dance, literature, etc., then the best terms are "visual arts," "visual artists." logologist|Talk 21:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks.--SylwiaS | talk 22:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just made a voting there. There's no sense to keep the discussion anymore. The problem is the great amount of non-Poles being brought to the list. The list is getting too large, and really not clear. Many of the new Poles are completely unkown in Poland. So how they are going to be the most famous Poles who should be on the list? Anyhow, there are two editors. One wants the list to be clear. Not too many names in one group etc. I moved some artist elsewhere and the same may be done with other people. But in the same time when I move really well known famous Poles elsewhere, the article gets addtional names, like this list of American Football players [5]. The other editor uses the criterion of surname. So everyone with a surname with the suffix "ski" is added. No matter if the person is a Pole, or e.g. their family emigrated 100 years ago. This way soon there will be only Americans on the list, and we'll have to do another list. Maybe List of Poles from Poland.--SylwiaS | talk 09:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I unswered your question there. It was about Germans of course. I posted about the voting on our board, and I'll post also on Antidote's talk page, but I don't know who else should be informed. Is there any Polonia board here?--SylwiaS | talk 10:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine. I don't know of a Polonia board. logologist|Talk 11:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I haven't been here on time to post there something, and now I see it's moved already. I'm surprised it's done with so little voices. I think we should wait with moving anything for the general voiting results at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Terminology. But then, there's no voting.--SylwiaS | talk 08:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about using nouns rather than adjectives is very convincing to me. It's after all like we would translate into Polish Jeanne d'Arc or Joan of Arc as Joanna Arska or even Joanna Łukowska. Perhaps it's not the most proper example, but shows the oddity anyway. Well, in Polish we can use either a noun or an adjective, so maybe simply Polskie Kingdom would be a better example. I think we make the same mistake with PLC. There is Commonwealth of Nations, Commonwealth of England, Australia, Dominica etc, but Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Norman Davis uses Poland-Lithuania in his "Europe". Maybe we should rather use Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania? After all we wouldn't translate Rzeczpospolita Polska as Polska Republic, yet we use Polish republic and Polish state alhough there is no such a thing as English Kingdom or British Kingdom.

I live in Poland (or if we are going to be even more creative with the geo terminology - in Warsawshire), so I have all the diacritics in my keyboard. But here it seems that you should choose 'Polish' from the 'More characters' bar below.--SylwiaS | talk 12:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me, it might be nice to feature "Marian Rejewski" on February 13, the 26th anniversary of his death. logologist|Talk 11:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. You might wish to ask User:Raul654 nicely if/when the article is promoted (Raul selects the main page featured article). — Matt Crypto 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing, really, what theories some people will believe. If he cannot provide sources, revert him. I see he is providing some scandinavian-language source now, though. It would be nice if you can find something that clearly lablels those theories as false to debunk him... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witaj, Podkarpaty to chyba jakis potworek jezykykowy :/ Chyba nie ma takiego slowa, wojewodztwo podkarpackie pochodzi raczej od Podkarpacie. Pozdrawiam Meteor2017 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zgadza się. Dziękuję! logologist|Talk 00:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For copyedit of Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I am looking forward to the finished version.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reply here because it is at the moment easier for me - and the email had nothing that looked private in the first place, I hope you don't mind.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> Please notice that the Wikipedia article on "Offices in the > Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth," in discussing the three principal > "prowincyje" (Wielkopolska, Malopolska, Lithuania), titles that section, > "District offices."

That's (as the entire article) is my translation of "urzad ziemski".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> If we were to consistently render "prowincyje" as "districts (prowincyje), > " that should remove the only plausible objection against reserving the > English word "province" for the Polish "wojewodztwo." > We could then use the usual English equivalents for such administrative > units, respectively "province" and "county," for "wojewodztwo" and > "powiat," thereby bringing the terminology into line with that of most of > the rest of today's world.

I think that prowincja (not 'prowincyja') is a larger entity that voivodship. If not for the PLC times when they used the 'prowincja' for Crown/GDL/Rus/Prusy, it would all be so much easier. I guess we could settle on something like voivodship-level province and province-level province, but the second part is kind of funny (maslo maslane...). Province ('wojewodztwo') or province ('voivodship') are also aleternatives to consider. What about using voivodship (province) for voividship, and just province in those few historical contexts where it's merited, plus there is an explanation of this in the PLC article (geography section) and we can add them to voivodship/province articles?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> (Please see the article, "Voivodships of Poland"--the closing section, on > "Etymology and usage of 'voivodship.'")

> For now, let's refine the article on Polish-Lithuanian offices. But, as > we work on that, perhaps we could consider the foregoing idea?

I am, I am, I just can't see the best solution. Have this problem been reffered to RfC yet? Maybe some outside votes will be helpful?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the English translation of the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791, on Wikisource, you will see that "prowincyja" appears in the main text only once, otherwise only in the Signatures section at the end. Where the word does appear, it is rendered as "province [prowincyja]." Elsewhere, "województwo" is rendered as "province [województwo]." Thus the historic distinction is maintained. logologist|Talk 17:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert this POV pusher.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"POV pusher"? Yeah, that's fair. You have an interesting philosophy on admin integrity. - Calgacus 18:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve your manners. I refer to [this edit] on Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, . - Calgacus 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Logologist, I entertained the idea of moving the article to "Greater Poland Uprising (1806)", but 1) all the other Greater Poland Uprising articles use the "of" format, and 2) the Polish WP uses "powstanie wielkopolskie XXXX roku". However, it doesn't really matter that much to me, as long as all the Greater Poland Uprising articles are consistent. I also prefer the English "Greater Poland" over "Wielkopolska". I don't think it sounds like "Greater German Reich" any more than "Greater London". Appleseed (Talk) 02:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, I favor using the fewest words that will do the job; I think it minimizes the strain on the reader in processing the information he reads – hence my preference for parentheses rather than an "of."

"Greater Poland" is not strictly a translation so much as a paraphrase of "Wielkopolska" (literally, "Great Poland"), though it probably reflects the medieval Latin rendition (I think it was something like "Polonia major"). If it were up to me, I'd just use the original Polish. And I would still hold out for it, when it comes to the present-day province (województwo). logologist|Talk 02:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, I was going to argue that moving "Greater Poland Uprising" to "Wielkopolska Uprising" would make about as much sense as moving "November Uprising" to "Listopad Uprising" (which to me is not much). But after a bit of Google research, I'm not so sure anymore. "Great/er Poland Uprising" are more popular with Google than "Wielkopolska Uprising", but those two English terms give no Google Books results, whereas the Polish returns one. Once again, Google only confused me. :) So at this point, I don't really case what we move the articles to, as long as they're all the same. Appleseed (Talk) 04:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the old 18th-century "prowincyje" (Wielkopolska, Małopolska and Lithuania) are concerned, I agree with you: consistency is important, and moreover these terms are today more historic than practical. So I think you can use the Anglicizations for these with a clear conscience. But if it proves possible, I'd rather use authentic Polish names (in the noun forms, as in English) for present-day major Polish geographic entities, which from pity for English readers I would call "provinces" and "counties." The only plausible objection to the former term that might be raised, I think, involves the historic "prowincyje" that ceased to exist 211 years ago. Perhaps, time permitting, we can discuss these matters further. logologist|Talk 04:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree that the articles should be moved to "Wielkopolska Uprising (1XXX)"? Appleseed (Talk) 00:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Thank you for being willing to understand my demur at "translating" proper names. I think it does a disservice to both Poles and non-Poles. logologist|Talk 01:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we should be all set now. Appleseed (Talk) 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when we are talking about "prowincja" during any of Greater Poland Uprisings we dont think about provinces of PLC but Prussian/German provinces of South Prussia, Grand Duchy of Poznań or Province of Posen. Radomil talk 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, words change meaning over time. (Some persons might even take a Heraclitean view that a word never has the same meaning twice.) Hence I have no reluctance about using the word "province" as the English equivalent for the Polish "województwo." The 19th-century Hansom cab was a horse-drawn vehicle, the 20th-century taxi cab was a motor-powered vehicle; yet the difference in the nature of their respective horse powers does not prevent our calling the taxi a "cab," and no one confuses the present-day motorized cab with the old horse-drawn one. Moreover, the Polish "provinces" (województwa) have repeatedly, in recent times, even changed their geographic extents. logologist|Talk 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, it looks like Piotruś wants to bring Warsaw Uprising to FA. That article is the main one in the Template:Warsaw Uprising series. I'm not happy with the names of some of the articles in the series--they're long and awkward. For starters, I'd like to move "Lead up to the Warsaw Uprising" to "Prelude to the Warsaw Uprising" and "The capitulation of Warsaw after the Warsaw Uprising" to "Capitulation of Warsaw after the Warsaw Uprising" and "Aftereffects of the Warsaw Uprising" to "Legacy of the Warsaw Uprising". The other names aren't great either. Can you take a look at them before I start making changes? Thanks. Appleseed (Talk) 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing my attention to the Warsaw Uprising series. I see your point about the titles. I'd like to read all the articles, and perhaps do some editing. That may give me a sense of how best to phrase the titles. It would take a few days.

One possibility which might have merit would be to tie the constituent articles together with a common main title, "Warsaw Uprising," then differentiate each with a colon, followed by an appropriate subtitle, e.g.: "overview," "prelude," "course," "external support," "capitulation," "legacy," "cultural representations," "forces," "chief actors," "statistics." logologist|Talk 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea, but I don't know if it conforms to the WP article naming conventions. I'll have to look into it. Appleseed (Talk) 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WU is already a FA. It's the series of subarticles that has been now nominated for 'Featured series'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Solidarity. I don't think Polish version is the best, but surely solidarity should be a disambig.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With one of the disambiguees being something like "Solidarity (Polish political movement)." logologist|Talk 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How "commune" should be properly used? Commune of Chorosz or Chorosz Commune?--SylwiaS | talk 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English language permits both usages: "State of New York," "New York State." I would, however, at each administrative level – województwo, powiat, gmina – place the specific name first: "Chorosz Commune."

Actually, New York is the only state I can think of that uses that form. You never hear of "California State" or "West Virginia State". Appleseed (Talk) 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This puts the focus of interest (Chorosz) first; and it also reduces the number of words required by one, making it the more elegant solution. logologist|Talk 01:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I jak bys waśc to przetłumaczył: pl:Ziemia (administracja)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prawdopodobnie wyrazem "District," przez analogię do "Lake District." Również użyłbym "district" na "dzielnicę" miasta. logologist|Talk 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uwaga techniczna: kopiuj odpowiedzi na strony pytajacego, bo malo kto sprawdza cudze strony po odpowiedu (ja nie - dopiero teraz przeczytalem twoja odpowiedz).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciekawy artykul, ale... czy to nie podpada pod Wikipedia:NOR? Zwlaszcza biorac pod uwage konstrukcje 'leadu' i sam tytul.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at wikibooks:False Friends of the Slavist. With your language skills, you can help us very much there, though there is not too much to be done. See also wikibooks:Talk:False Friends of the Slavist for details on what is still needed. Thanks in advance! --Daniel Bunčić 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to move this list from my userspace to mainspace soon, but I am not happy with it looks (it's kind of ugly). Suggestions (to a name as well) appreciated. I am thinking of moving names and dates of officeholders to more general articles - otherwise this could be a VERY long lists. Hetmans are done, and some bishops already have lists in 'Bishops of...' articles. In case of voivodes, 'voivodship of...' with a subsection on voivodes is good enough, but where should we move castellans? Creating almost a hundred of 'castellan of...' may not be looked upon that friendly by some AfD crowd. Should they be added to the city's article? Castellans (as szlachta in general) didn't have much to do in cities, I don't think they even had any 'office' there. And there are ministers and court officials too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotruś, I'm not sure I follow. Are you trying to create an article to list all the other WP articles that list Polish people by office? Appleseed (Talk) 16:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, thanks for letting me know about the vote. Have you looked at the discussion lately? The move was completed (prematurely) but I asked the admin to hold off so we can get some more input. I'll post on the board so others can vote too. Appleseed (Talk) 14:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey – I reverted this back to my version and made some further edits to improve the article. I explained myself on the talk page; if you want to discuss further, I'll be watching it. Mangojuice 18:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Logologist, just wondering how you feel about using "rokosz" in the English WP. I'm not crazy about using an apostrophe to create a plural of a foreign word, as in Category:Polish rokosz's. Appleseed (Talk) 18:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a little monstrosity. While rokosz deserves it's own article, making a category is going too far - rebellions will be better (this category could have uprisings and such, too). Category:Polish rebellions, than?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, I see you've already created the category. I was going to suggest we name it Rebellions of Poland, which would fit the naming conventions of Category:Rebellion.

Also, what do you think about merging Category:Polish confederations into our new rebellions category? Rebellions and confederations are not quite the same thing, but because confederations are a Polish phenomenon, it's hard to place that category in other categories.

Where possible, I try to avoid prepositions (such as "of"), hence my bias in favor of "Polish rebellions" over "Rebellions of Poland." Both expressions can be ambiguous; if you like, I could expand on their implications. A precedent for "Polish rebellions" is "Cossack uprisings."

I would favor keeping separate categories for "Polish rebellions," "Polish confederations" and "Polish uprisings," while placing a particular event in more than one category where appropriate. Thus the Bar Confederation was both a confederation and a rebellion. And the January Uprising was both an uprising and a rebellion. The Warsaw Confederation, however, was not really a rebellion. Among the three overlapping categories, we should have the field pretty well covered. logologist|Talk 04:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As they say in the movies, "oh be-have". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive).

Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russsian_claims_about_Warsaw_Uprising_1794 The author tries to put information from non-objective source as objective article. The source is from Imperial Russia regarding Polish uprising against its occupation. Imperial Russia was known for fabricating and being source of many antipolish fabrications. Because I didn't want to delete this(no blanking) I moved it to a proper article that would deal with claim. --Molobo 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like here. Tnx.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Double redirects.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesołych Świąt! Dr. Dan 15:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you listed some people (Józef Piłsudski, Edmund Charaszkiewicz) on the new [[Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR]] can someone add a reference on the Category talk:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR when he predicted this?

Thanks for the addition and support, I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks, Travb 13:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, so they did predict the collapse of the USSR? thanks for your time, and for responding.Travb 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the cleanup :) Valentinian ^(talk) 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 17:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A my wlasnie z Balcerem i Halibuttem urzadzamy konferencje na GG. Bardzo polecam korzystanie z GG!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that a lot of the Voivodship articles are being renamed? Rich Farmbrough 13:06 7 May 2006 (UTC).

Thank you. Yes, I've noticed the doings of William Allen Simpson. I would be interested in your candid take on the województwo-naming disputes: "Voivodship" vs. "Province"? "Polish" vs. "English" vs. "Latin" name versions, in English-language texts?

I thought I had come to workable solutions to these questions, using "province" and Polish "main-entry" (noun), rather than adjectival, forms for the geographic entities. I failed to convince some of the more vocal Polish editors, and I suppose they are now getting their comeuppance, courtesy of William Allen Simpson.

Actually, I would rather see the province names in their unmodified Polish adjectival forms, as they are now being introduced by William Allen Simpson, than in the various odd and arbitrary "anglicizations" and "latinizations." I still feel that my versions were a good solution; but I'm not sure I have time or energy to endlessly tilt at windmills – I'm at present inclined to leave that to the Don Quixotes who keep gallivanting about countrysides with which they have little familiarity. logologist|Talk 08:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see them consistent, but I thought that the Polish Geography Project had worked out a consistent solution. I'm also aware that the general naming policy is to use the most common version for the title of the article, and if this is "technically" wrong to introduce and use the correct term within the article. Vovoidships were a new concept to me when I came to WP, but one that tickled my interest, whereas I'm not aware of any of these regions being in the common parlance as per, say Florence, wiht the possible exception of Pomerania (?). I wanted to alert people as to what's going on without making a fuss, because I could see it would be a massive job to undo these changes. I also don't want to mount Rocinante. Perhaps one of the project pages is the place to bring it up? Rich Farmbrough 20:00 9 May 2006 (UTC).

Some discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board. This question could use the perspectives of English native-speakers, in addition to native Poles and bilingual Polish-and-English speakers. I hope you'll join in. logologist|Talk 14:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much for your vote on Talk:Pope Stephen X. :o) Švitrigaila 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss and vote at Talk:History_of_the_world#Name_ambiguity Thank you, __ Maysara 12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry at Talk:Casimir_III_of_Poland#Poll_results. I'd strongly recommend defending your good name and going with the 'checkuser'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use Sockpuppets to influence the course of discussion and consensus-finding. Such activity is unhelpful and undermines the encyclopedia. I have blocked three of your sockpuppets indefinitely and further such activity will result in a temporary block of your main account. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed in your behaviour. You have done us a proverbial 'niedźwiedzia przysługa', and failed my trust - and likely that of most other members of our project. That said, I hope you will work hard to repair the damage done and regain the position of a trusted contributor, many of your content creation and English language edits were beneficial to our project. Please concentrate on those good points of yours in the future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is very sad that you did this foolish thing, of course I doubt it will change the massive Polonophobia we already experience, but why give ammo to the ones that shoot you ? --Molobo 19:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I join the others in expressing my profound dismay at your behavior. I hope that you will issue a formal apology. Balcer 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto disappointment :( — Matt Crypto 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye... —Nightstallion (?) 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, if you're still there, just apologize and return to editing. Using sockpuppets for voting was childish and harmful, but we all do stupid things sometimes and it's not the end of the world. I've always admired your edits and I would not like to see en.wiki loosing a valuable editor like yourself. --Lysy^talk 07:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We need your contribution and enWiki will not be the same without you. Let’s forget about past mistakes. Best wishes, Listowy 11:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Just come back. --SylwiaS | talk 06:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "editor" should be banned forevermore for that he/she is done. M.K. 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you are back to editing Wikipedia, I will kindly remind you that many users still await your comment on the sockpuppet issue. An apology would be ideal, and go a long way towards clearing the air. Please consider it. Balcer 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to see Logologist back editing. As you say, it might help, but it's not necessary to apologise for past mistakes on Wikipedia; it's merely necessary not to keep repeating them. — Matt Crypto 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mattcrypto, it's not necessary to apologize. Good manners and courtesy are not necessary either, in the world we live in today. Dr. Dan 23:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter assertion—as exemplified by the logorrheic and crude Dr. Dan, aka Calgacus, who emulate the demagogy once practiced by their compatriot, Senator Joseph McCarthy. logologist|Talk 07:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't always agree with Dr. Dan, and I respect Logologist for his past contributions, but I agree with Balcer that you should adress your behaviour - and honestly I don't see what else then an apology could be done. And after that we can all start with a blank slate.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be anything like start with blank page etc.; his/her “contributions” are well know, and this “editor” will be always called sock puppeteer M.K. 12:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the concept of forgiveness, M.K.?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“concept” of forgiveness could be applied to person who acknowledge his misbehaver and not committed continuous crimes. M.K. 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally with M.K. on this. While Logologist's withdrawal is not something I want, I am truly amazed by his unapologetic stance. Instead he accused Calgalus/Dan in sockpuppetry and brought in the issue of McCarthy, basically attacking his opponents so shamelessly. ---Irpen 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that McCarthy has nothing to do with Calgacus, nor was he a compatriot of his. Nor are he, or I, sockpuppets of each other. But since you think I'm crude and logorrheic, I will attempt to be more elegant in the future and address you po polsku, as Pan, from now on, if you return. Would Pan Mattergy be O.K.? Or would you prefer Pan KonradWallenrod? Which of the different personas you've edited in, would be most to your liking? Hmm? Pan Logorrheic would be too crude, even for the likes of me. I'll leave your elegant labels in your little bag of tricks for you to use. Dr. Dan 20:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny that all the people who've accused me of being a sockpuppet or puppetmaster have themselves been puppetmasters. Logologist, cheer up, you'll be fine when you reform your behaviour. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of philosophy in Poland, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Congratulations on behalf of User:Blnguyen --Bravada, talk - 03:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that's the standard procedure which I performed on behalf of User:Blnguyen - you should get the notice anytime an article you created gets featured on DYK. But the person who you should really thank is User:Piotrus, who noticed your article and nominated a fact from it! Regards, Bravada, talk - 09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

welcome back! Could you help me in translating this: O, wódko zdradliwa, Wielom rzeczom krzywa.?--SylwiaS | talk 09:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you!

I'm unfamiliar with the rhyme. What is the context?

logologist|Talk

It was written by Jerzy Potański in 1614 in a book about vodkas. It's the only quote from this book that is present in Polish bases of quotations so I thought it might be added to the article. See Vodka#Poland (I've just developed it). But now I wonder myself. It's difficult to translate it out of context, which I don't know. So maybe it's not such a good idea.

BTW I saw your article about Philosophy in Poland. I thought that maybe Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki should be added there as well. And also Leon Chwistek.--SylwiaS | talk 07:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know whether my additions on Goślicki and Chwistek are satisfactory. I'd also welcome nominations for additional philosophers of the post-World War II period. logologist|Talk 04:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"O vodka, mankind's bane, bringing griefs in its train!" logologist|Talk 08:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's great! Have you by a chance translated W malinowym chruśniaku?

Who wrote it? Is it a poem? logologist|Talk 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the philosophers:

• Zygmunt Bauman - undoubtedly the most notable one, it was difficult to arrange the rest in the order of notability, so it should be treated loosely:

From Bauman's WP entry, he sounds like a sociologist—perhaps a "philosopher," because a speculative rather than rigorously empirical sociologist? logologist|Talk 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sociology is in a way a part of philosophy Philosophy#Applied_philosophy. And today philosophy is very much sociology oriented. I.e. it would be difficult to decide if Slavoj Žižek is more a philosopher or a sociologist, and his work is very much influenced by Lacan, who isn't considered a philosopher by Wiki, yet is widely read by philosophers. Philosophy is a kind of searching for the most correct picture of the world, humanity etc. It's not so important where one is searching. I'm not saying Bauman is the best Polish philosopher of the period, that might be disputed, but he's certainly most renowned around the world. Here are google hits Bauman+filozof [6]--SylwiaS | talk 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Marek Siemek
• Józef Tischner
• Krzysztof Michalski - Michalski co-established the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna and its division in Boston [7] (IMHO a heaven on earth for people who make their doctoral degree in philosophy, sociology etc.) Also, Michalski and Tischner came with an idea of writing a book about John Paul II, the material from their meetings with the pope was later used for his last book Memory and Identity.
• Adam Sikora
• Barbara Skarga
• Tadeusz Gadacz
• Roman Suszko

this one may be controversial:

• Bronisław Baczko

these ones are very contemporary:

• Paweł Dybel
• Bogdan Baran
• Krzysztof Pomian--SylwiaS | talk 20:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sylwia, tnx for reminding us about Goślicki, one of my favourite 'forgotten' people. I wonder if Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski wouldn't classify as a philosopher, too? I also thought if we can count people like Krzysztof Opaliński as philosophers... in that time, there wasn't that much difference between philosopher or a political scientist... In related news, as long as we are talking about poetry, what do you guys think of User:Piotrus/Sandbox#Poetry?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like "Yalta" very much! Sure, political science and philosophy had much in common. A propos Goślicki. Here's an article which I think may be very interesting to both of you. It's about the perception of Shakespeare in Poland throughout centuries[8]. A.o. it says that Polonius might have been an influence of Goślicki's De optimo Senatore. But all in all the article also says much about our Enlightenment thinking and influences.

W malinowym chruśniaku is probably the most famous Leśmian's poem. I tried to translate it once, but it's far above my abilities. I can translate the words, but not the soul of it. Here's the poem [9] and some papers about it [10][11]--SylwiaS | talk 04:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW As much as today philosophy tries to stay out of theology, we should remember that until not so long ago people simply couldn't imagine the world without God. So theologians like Modrzewski may be considered philosophers since they didn't focus solely on religious doctrines. After all once the church was one of the best places for scholars. Also, every country has its specific, and the church in Poland has a specific place as well. As much as in other countries the church might have been very narrow-minded it wasn't so here. We had different traditions and attitudes. And so many of our best men come from church. I.e. we're unique in that that 40% of our Enlightenment thinkers were priests. Also, in time of communism the Catholic University in Lublin was practically the only place in the Soviet block were non-communist thoughts could be studied.--SylwiaS | talk 04:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the two interesting poems. In "Yalta," I might render "Trójca" as "the Three" (during World War II, they were called the "Big Three") rather than "the Trinity," even if the author was actually alluding to the Holy Trinity.

I've added Frycz Modrzewski to the History of philosophy in Poland. If someone would like to introduce further brief notes about other thinkers, especially from the past half-century, I'll be happy to check the English.

Good point about the permeable boundaries between philosophy and other fields of study.

Thank you both for the many interesting references for further reading! logologist|Talk 09:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is not at all civil. Read Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility. Don't do it again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check my recent additions in the "Names" section? I tried to explain the way to translate "powiat" names, but I am far from being an expert in this area. Balcer 23:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Balcer 16:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z tego, co się orientuje, nie ma hasła pl:filozofia polska w naszej Wikipedii. Jeśli się orietuje dobrze, to sytuację mamy dziwną, bo angielska ma obszerny History of philosophy in Poland. Może przetłumaczyłbyś ten tekst do polskiej wikipedii na dobry początek? Sam się w końcu pewnie za to wezmę, lecz Tobie byłoby pewnie łatwiej, zważywszy na Twój wkład w to hasło i zdecydowanie lepszą znajomość angielskiego. PozdrawiamMaLu 18:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting suggestion.

The "History of philosophy in Poland" article is predominantly based on Tatarkiewicz's Historia filozofii, and so could largely be "reverse-translated" by looking up the respective fragments in his Historia.

I'm sure your Polish would be much better up to it than mine; and I could look over the Polish version for any inadvertent inaccuracies.

In the process of producing a Polish version, the article could be augmented, especially regarding the post-World War II period.

Nice to hear from you.

logologist|Talk 06:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so i will start this big work by myself. GreetingsMaLu 11:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W końcu miałem czas przeczytać ten artykuł, wyśmienity. Jeśli mógłbyś dodać inline citations, można by pomyśleć o FA. Aha, znalazłem i dodałem krótką ale akademicką ref po angielsku.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Snyder reference (which appears to make considerable use of Edmund Charaszkiewicz's work).

I'm not sure how one would do the in-line citations—or how much they would add. Practically the entire article is condensed from pp. 56-87 of Charaszkiewicz's book.

He seems a remarkable writer.

logologist|Talk 06:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically add (Charszkiewicz, year of publication) to every paragaraph (and in some cases possibly controversial senentences). Footnotes (cite.php) would be nice, but are not necessary (and are much more timeconsuming).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; I notice your edit in this article regarding the translation of the phrase "Arbeit Macht Frei". I recognise your expertise in things Polish, and have not changed the article; but have you read the extensive discussion on the article's talk page, including some comments by German-speaking editors, on this point?--Anthony.bradbury 11:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing my attention to the discussion ("Arbeit macht frei"). I've changed my change to: "Work makes one free," which does now seem to me perhaps closer idiomatically to the German than "Work liberates." I claim no expertise in German, however. Please feel free to change the English translation, as you deem appropriate, to any of the alternates. logologist|Talk 19:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea how to translate this? Please reply on article's talk page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent deletion of the leading article at the Biuro article has thrown me for a bit of a loop. As a test, I've spoken to people about the Biuro (hard to bring up other than out of the blue, which results in puzzlement in others), and the article seems natural, and its lack seems unnatural. The subjects of my experiments aren't fully neutral, as I was forced to explain what was going on which contaminated the pristine purity of the attempt with placebo effect (or something related).

In addition, I've tried writing sentences about the Biuro with and without the article, and there is oddity without it.

Therefore, I think (or rather the obscure language expert embedded somewhere in my brain) that the article is needed for proper English. Note carefully that I have absolutely no idea how it ought to be used in Polish, and so I'm entirely innocent of any bias from that language. I await your comemnt before making any changes in the Biuro article. ww 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I suppose it's ultimately a matter of taste.

"Biuro Szyfrów" does not, in Polish, take what English knows as an article adjective; nor does any other Polish expression. Context or different grammatical structures determine whether it is a Cipher Bureau or the Cipher Bureau that is under discussion. For that matter, English-language newspaper headlines (as well as Wikipedia-article titles) likewise commonly dispense with article adjectives.

Is Spain's King, in English, to be known as "Juan Carlos" or "John Charles"?

I like to hold as closely as possible to authentic foreign usages. But if the naked "Biuro Szyfrów" offends you, then by all means feel free to clothe it in an article-adjective figleaf.

logologist|Talk 07:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L, I seem to recall an edict from a Ms Fidditch of long ago about English using the proper noun from a foreign language, unless it becomes impossible. So Juan Carlos, but also Vladimir Putin, almost no english speaker having the correct knowledge of Cyrillic. No mention was made of the auxillary elemnts like the articles and observing the patterns in the foreign language. So, I think "The" ought to be restored to the article. I'll have at it. Thanks, ww 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the "the" sounds better to my ear. Just my 2 pence. — Matt Crypto 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues raised at this FAC review was the need for a copyedit by a better English speaker than myself; you came to mind :) Would you mind going over the article, and commenting on the FAC?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for the work, do let me know when you are done so I can relist the FAC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I nudge you back to this article? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Good luck! logologist|Talk 23:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have reverted my correction of the coat of arms caption. Respectfully suggest reconsideration as all family arms are hereditary, thus superflous to describe them as such. In fact it would not be possession of arms that caused one to decline a knighthood in such circumstances but what they signify, namely nobility. --Balliol 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since arms signify nobility, there is no need to state the obvious (the nobility). My recollection is that Joseph Conrad specifically justified declining a British knighthood on the grounds that he already possessed a Polish coat-of-arms. Please let me know, if I'm missing something. logologist|Talk 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Frankly, I think Conrad was using his Polish patent of nobility as a red herring. I suspect he was too much of a democrat and a progressive, and too aware of his very real personal accomplishments, to care about such medieval hereditary distinctions. logologist|Talk 23:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could well be right about the latter. It would be interesting to know for sure. I will check the leading authority, Prof. A S Ciechanowiecki. Being armigerous would not ordinarily be a convincing reason to decline a knighthood, especially at that period, unless intended to be insulting, which would seem out of character – .Balliol 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now raised this with Prof. A S Ciechanowieki who states that Conrad did not possess a "Polish hereditary knighthood", and that the reason for declining a British knighthood was not due to entitlement to Polish arms. Accordingly I have deleted references to these points. Prof Ciecnowiecki has put me in touch with the leading Conrad authority and biographer, Prof. Zdzislaw Najder for a definitive explanation of the declined British knighthood, which I will add in due course--Balliol 22:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken up your suggestion and begun the expansion of the Conrad entry with a subsection on Conrad's failed love affair in Mauritius recounted in his novella, The Smile of Fortune. Compared to the present length of the whole Conrad entry this may seem over long; however the intention is to do justice to him by expanding the entire entry. – Balliol 23:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia has long articles on a number of authors. Fortunately there have been many books about Conrad, on which to draw. I look forward to reading your augmented article as it develops. logologist|Talk 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement. I wonder if we might not standardise on UK English following Wiki guidelines, this being a British writer, albeit naturalised (not sure how many of us could negotiate Polish spelling)?

Incidently a distinguished Polish-American academic, Dr S. Klimczuk, has just complimented the entry for its handling of the Polish dimension. Not my doing, but I pass the laurel on. – Balliol 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest additions nicely streamline the Conrad entry. Dr Klimczuk suggests that the missing element is a subsection on Conrad's technique and its evolution. Not something I feel qualified to attempt but perhaps you or another contributor would consider undertaking this? --Balliol 20:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent subsection on Style. The quotations at the conclusion are telling – Balliol 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for the suggestion. I'm sure that more worthwhile information will be added in time by you and other interested participants. You've done a great job of putting flesh on the bare bones of the original article. logologist|Talk 06:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad's biographer, Professor Zdzisław Najder, has kindly replied to my enquiry on this question. I quote his conclusions with consent "There could have been various reasons: from his awareness that the British govt. had been much less than friendly to re-born Poland in 1918 and 1920 - to his general reticence in participating in British political life (he never voted in parliamantary elections) and his unwillingness to accept official honours (he refused several honorary doctoral degrees). But to me the simplest and the most likely reason was his awareness that he belonged to a noble family with roots reaching back at least to the XVIth C. He was acutely conscious of having broken the line of patriots serving his home country; accepting the knighthood could have seemed to him as a confirmation of his own desertion."

I feel this vindicates both Logologist's original argument and much of the subsequent debate, and accordingly would suggest that the present wording of the entry might stand. For those interested page 488 of Prof. Najder's biography refers. -- Balliol 15:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the point, and for your excellent contributions to the article. This makes a nice start to the new year. logologist|Talk 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Logologist. Thankyou for your work on this list--in particular for adding Baron d'Holbach and Joseph Stalin with appropriate references. Please don't forget to add an edit summary for each edit. This helps other editors to monitor changes. Best regards, 69.23.115.197 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind if the atheists were put in alphabetical order. What have you heard from others? Please don't forget to type in an edit summary each time you edit. Nick Graves 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up to now, we've mostly been putting them in alphabetical order. Since they represent a couple of centuries of history, it seems to me that chronological order would make more sense. I hesitated to suggest this, from reluctance to create more work for myself or someone else. But if there is a technically easy way to move them around in order to get them into birth-year order, I would favor that. Either way, though, I think we should be consistent. logologist|Talk 06:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Maddux's name appears in the Feferman-Feferman book, in the list of Tarski's Ph.D. students. The year is 1978, the title is "Topics in Relation Algebras". Cheers. Kope 07:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Sorry for deleting Maddux. (I've become touchy about vandalizations.) Please reinstate him. logologist|Talk 07:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded it before seeing it was created by you - but either way it has to be expanded to be notable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw him on a televised Egyptian-history-and-archeology program. He's pretty prominent. logologist|Talk 23:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but the article needs more substance - it will be deleted by some AfD fan soon otherwise.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laments (Treny), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Logologist, you created Category:Polish intelligence officers a while ago. Is that cat supposed to be synonymous with Category:Polish spies? If so, I would like to delete it because it doesn't fit into the category tree. Appleseed (Talk) 17:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia "Espionage" article seems to draw a distinction between a "spy" ("a person employed to obtain... secrets") and an "intelligence officer" ("a member of the armed forces, police, or [a] civilian intelligence agency who specializes in the gathering... and analysis of... intelligence in order to provide advice to [his] government or another organisation"). The article further explains that intelligence officers "recruit and 'run' intelligence agents, who in turn spy on their own governments."

By this distinction, the persons listed in "Category: Polish intelligence officers" qualify as "intelligence officers." Those in "Category: Polish spies" were "intelligence agents" ("spies") – though, according to his article, the "Polish spy" Josef Olechowski may actually have been an "intelligence officer."

Perhaps this would be a distinction worth preserving. logologist|Talk 21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure if you're a frequent editor of List of Polish-Americans, but I need some help explaining why we shouldn't be adding Polish-Americans to List of Poles and Polish-Jewish-Americans to List of Polish Jews. There seems to be this idea that one can define what a list includes arbitrarily. Thanks for any help. Respond if you can on TALK:List of Polish Jews though you don't have to. 141.213.210.40 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've done what you said. Can you help me with the List of Polish Jews? Blanket excuses are being used to maintain as many unsourced names as possible on the list. Can you look into it? See TALK:List of Polish Jews#Sources for reasoning. TwiceAweek 05:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of sourcing seems to be well set out. It seems to be a matter of monitoring for presence of legitimate sources. How specifically might I help? logologist|Talk 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the unsourced/badly names have been on the list for over a month now, and when I attempted to remove them or move them to the talk page, I was met with WP:OWNish edits and accusations of being a "banned user." A small group of editors have a sort of oligarchy on the list refusing to (re)move the names despite perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so. Apparently they believe unsourced names are allowed to stay on a list forever. I'm not going to revert them again using this username because it would be a clear WP:POINT on my part now. But I would appreciate some help in getting these names removed if no source agree with them being Polish/and or Jewish. We have a bunch of American politicians on the list right now. If they stay, it pretty much defeats the purpose of even having a List of Polish Americans. We'll then get arguments for mergining List of Poles and List of Polish Americans if such measures continue. TwiceAweek 00:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Logologist. I noticed that you've been contributing to List of atheists. I wonder if you would be willing to help me out in making further improvements to the article in order to get it up to Featured List quality. In particular, I wonder what you think of the current inclusion criteria, and what your evaluation is of the peer review of the article. Thank you. Nick Graves 02:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the idea of the emdash, applied to uncompleted life dates. logologist|Talk 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to add your new articles to that list (and I'll keep pestering you about that till you do! :).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While most of your changes to Helena Modjeska were helpful, I restored some of the uses of "Modjeska". The actress changed her name, as performers often do, and she is best known in the English language as "Modjeska". We don't refer other Polish performers who emigrated under their original names either, or to any other performers who became famous with a stage name. If you'd like to discuss it further then let's talk at Talk:Helena Modjeska. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Wprawdzie nie wiem, z czym to się je – ale ładnie wygląda!

Let's hope the new year brings more serenity, accomplishment and health.

logologist|Talk 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself fixing broken or dead links on WP today, and have come across one that probably requires someone who can read Polish to fix it. I'm wondering if you may be interested. The article is Władysław_Sikorski and the link listed in the references section that is broken currently appears like this:

• Stanczyk, Zbigniew L., "Tajemnica gen. Sikorskiego", Przegląd Polski Online, 7th December 2002, in Polish, retrieved August 2, 2005

This is one of WP's Featured Articles, so it'd be nice to keep it in good shape. Thanks for your consideration. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 00:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another in the same article ...

• Special Edition of Kombatant Magazine 148 6/2003 on the occasion of the Year of General Sikorski, in Polish, PDF, has lots of photos

Keesiewonder 00:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing these to my attention. I tried both references on earlier editions of the article – the original date when Stanczyk was retrieved (8-2-05), and 2-19-06 for "Special Edition." Neither was available; I suspect they have both ceased to be on-line.

Please let me know if you find further problems with Polish-related articles.

Best wishes in the new year! logologist|Talk 01:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the New Year Wishes! I wish the same for you! I just figured out the problem with the first link; there was a trailing comma in the URL (now fixed on the article's page). For the other one, would you mind trying again? Please start with [12]. Perhaps from there you can do a search for the specific special issue that is supposed to feature an article on Sikorski. Thanks. Keesiewonder 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I found it ...? [13] Keesiewonder 02:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing a nice addition to the Spiritualism article. Would you mind also including your source? Thanks Anthon.Eff 14:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided links to the articles on Eusapia Palladino and Julian Ochorowicz, where the sources are available. I'll be happy to help further, but I'm not sure how the sources would best be listed in the "Spiritualism" article. logologist|Talk 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your response. But go ahead and provide the complete source, since we really shouldn't use one article as the primary reference for another. If the reference system in the article is too much hassle, then let me know and I'll take care of it. One more thing: Stanisława Tomczyk--why don't you start the article for her? As you noted in the article, Spiritualism was much more than simply an English-speaking phenomenon, so it would be great to have a link to an important medium from a non-English, non-Latin milieu. Anthon.Eff 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since articles use various reference systems (including inline citation, which I haven't mastered), I would be grateful if you could place the citations. I will make adjustments, if any are needed. As for Stanisława Tomczyk, I will see what I can do. logologist|Talk 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Stanisława Tomczyk" – done. logologist|Talk 08:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a native speaker, I dare to draw your attention to the expression "Russian Poland" you used in Maria S-C article. It seem awkward to me (I do not pretend that my version was better). I just ask myself, whether it is a standard form describing that historical situation. Moreover, don't you think that partitions should be mentioned and linked there? Best, --Beaumont (@) 09:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the eons I spent at Mokotowska Street, such a trip would not be pleasant at all, but what the heck. I'll see what I can do. //Halibutt 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gdzie na Mokotowskiej? Co tam było przykrego? logologist|Talk 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Municipal Library, Mokotowska Street. I studied there for most of my exams. //Halibutt 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Warsaw Municipal Library, with Prus' portrait, is near, but I don't think on, Mokotowska.

I understand how you feel. I once did a good deal of studying, myself, in that area.

logologist|Talk 02:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, indeed, it's at Koszykowa, not Mokotowska... Don't tell anyone, ok? ;) //Halibutt 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was Koszykowa. Your secret is safe with me.

School notwithstanding, it's an interesting part of town. On Mokotowska, a few buildings from the intersection with Wilcza, is the kamienica where Józef Piłsudski stayed briefly after returning in November 1918 from Magdeburg to Warsaw. On Wilcza, just around the corner from Mokotowska, is the site of Bolesław Prus' last apartment, where he died. logologist|Talk 03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Logologist. I have a favour to ask. You have moved article Florian Gate to St. Florian's Gate. However, the new name, although common among websites promoting tourism in Poland, is not written in good English. I can accept the changeover only as a St. Florian Gate without the letter "s" behind the name of Florian. Here are some examples of proper usage of the same given name: Saint Florian Church [14], St Florian de la Riviere [15], The St Florian Standard [16], or St. Florian Monastery in Enns [17], etc. Please change the name again.

I'm sending a copy of my request to User:Piotrus. Thanks. --Poeticbent  talk  16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just one comment. Fix your double redirects! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? logologist|Talk 02:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the how to is described at Wikipedia:Double redirects; but simply: what links here, and edit any redirect to redirect so that it redirects to article instead.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Piotrus#Request_to_Poeticbent_and_logologist.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/St. Florian's Gate, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/St. Florian's Gate. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Someone's nominated Poetry for a featured article review. I thought you'd be interested given all your work on the article.

Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sam 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to proofread my new article called St. Florian Church, Kraków? Also, you're welcomed to rename it, if you find sufficient evidence for the need to do so. However, please explain it on the article talk-page first, for all others to be able to take part. Thanks. --Poeticbent  talk  01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we rename it to Florian Church, Kraków. :-) Cheers, Appleseed (Talk) 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 10:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to Template:Enlightenment. I was wondering if you also had time and/or inclination to add the template to the pages of people themselves (as in Alexander Radishchev, for example), and possibly sort them in alphabetical order by the surname. If not, I'll do it sometime later. --AVIosad 07:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for placing the template on Ignacy Krasicki's page. I'll be happy to add the template to the other Poles' pages, probably in the next few days.

As to alphabetization – I can see its convenience, but personally I would be more inclined to arrange the individuals by date of birth, as I've done with the Poles, since the Enlightenment, depending on one's reading of it, spans a century or more, i.e., several generations.

logologist|Talk 07:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough re: date of birth, I might change it for other people as well. On the other hand, please consider the notability factor – I am no expert on Polish Enlightenment, admittedly, but it appears that some of the people you have added are not particularly prominent (some pages being just a couple of lines), and at the moment the template is designed to include the major Enlightenment figures. Feel free to disagree with me, though. --AVIosad 07:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question is, notable to whom? These Poles (and many more, not listed) were and are notable in their own country, if some of them little-known abroad. Some have only a few lines because, so far, they've only been stubbed. I will, however, gladly defer to your judgment: please feel free to lighten the boat! (If I disagree strenuously, I'll throw them a life preserver.)

If alphabetization is to be considered, shouldn't France precede Germany and Great Britain?

Congratulations on a useful and enlightening job!

logologist|Talk 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, thanks for pointing that out. Embarassing... Do you want to move the discussion of inclusion to Template talk:Enlightenment? --AVIosad 21:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I urge you to consider shortening the list of Poles on the template? You can add a full list to Enlightenment in Poland, but the Template should be cut down somewhat. --AVIosad^(talk) 19:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aka is poor English and bad form, please try a different formulation before you change all 16 voivodeships. Balcer 05:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Witaj. Zrobiłem przekierowanie strony na Lviv-Warsaw School of Logic, gdyż Lwów po angielsku to "Lviv", więc albo jest "Lviv-Warsaw School", albo "Lwów-Warszawa School", chyba to logiczne? W tej chwili natomiast istnieją w angielskiej wiki 2 tożsame wersje tekstu i żyją swoim życiem, a tak być nie powinno. Różnica jest taka, że w jednej wersji jest Lviv, w drugiej Lwów. Może by coś z tym zrobić? Pozdrawiam! Gerea-en 09:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Szkoła lwowsko-warszawska była zjawiskiem przedwojennym, polskim, powinna nosić nazwę ówczesną. Dziękuję za kontakt! logologist|Talk 10:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Leonardo is lucky one who is not called niemiec. But Copernicus is unlucky one because he lived too close to them. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way, they will at least write he was german-born, but be aware of write into any german that he was polish-born. No way. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this revision (and the ones before I changed them), why is the picture on the left and the table of contents on the right? –  $PЯINGrαgђ  P.S. Can you also respond on my talk page as well as here so I can know when you've replied? 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left-hand placement of Chopin's only photo permits use of a small – less repellent – version. Retaining the same small size but placing it on the right would, with some computer-screen models, cause the TOC to force the word "Life" in to the right, toward mid-page, making for an unlovely and disorienting effect.

Do you feel that it is important for a TOC to be on the left-hand side?

logologist|Talk 01:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you moved the style to a small image and non-standard TOC: there was feedback at one of the earlier review stages that the preference for FACs is to keep the format standard, with a strong and visible initial image suitable for featuring. I've moved it back; if you feel strongly, let me know. There's a second issue we have to think about at some point, which is that the TOC is becoming long and unwieldy - it may make sense to take some of the examples in the last two sections off the TOC (as is done in the "Rhyming Schemes" subsection), which would greatly compress it. A Musing (formerly Sam) 19:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing, in the TOC, the subsections from sections 3 and 4 seems acceptable.

As to format, the Chinese lantern is rather overpowering in its current 250px size; while the large blank area looks like the handiwork of a newspaper censor. Personally, I prefer a more compact format, which seems more respectful of the "newspaper's" readers. logologist|Talk 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the TOC, I'm happy to say, hey, let's put it to the right and wait until someone complains, as happened before. On the image, I actually like the bigger image, which grabs the reader much better, so I've bought into the arguments for that. At some point I'll try to compress the TOC, but I don't think it's a particularly high priority. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might like to discuss my improvements to the article at Talk:Marie Curie. --Guinnog 14:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on History of philosophy in Poland. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Heimstern Läufer 04:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, would you be kind enough to look over Almanach Cracoviense ad annum 1474 and make improvements (esp. prose)? Appleseed (Talk) 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article read well, but I've made a few stylistic changes. Please feel free to revert any of them. Among other things, in "Almanach cracoviense" I changed the initial "c" in "cracoviense" to lower case, which I imagine it was in in the original print.

Interesting article! logologist|Talk 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's much better. I moved the page to reflect your suggested capitalisation. Appleseed (Talk) 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Logologist,
Thank you for your response to my post. You gave a stab at a translation for me; the phrase was, "Quamquam in fundis inferiorum sumus, oculos angelorum tenebimus." Your translation was "Although in the lower depths, we behold with the eyes of angels." Which I believe is probably a direct hit! I was just wondering if you could take a quick second to break down (one in particular) the specifics for me.

I understand your translating "fundis inferiorum sumus" as "the lower depths" and that makes sense. "Oculos angelorum" is the "eyes of angels", I should have seen that myself before posting. Duh. But I wonder how you arrived at teneo (to hold, possess; presumably also to BEhold?) as the root of "tenebimus" instead of tenebrae, tenebricosus, tenebrosus - meaning gloomy, dark, blind, obscure, etc.? I guess that was really the source of my trouble in translating the phrase and mostly I'm just envious of your skill of course, but was also hoping for just a little enlightenment from an obvious master. :) Is there a trick to finding the true root of a word that is so heavily... decorated? :)

Jreitsch 23:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Latin declensions, conjugations, moods, etc., are rusty, so my guess is at best tentative.

"Sumus" ("we are") is a verb. It seemed to me that "tenebimus" must also be a verb, because: "-bimus" looks like a verb ending; and, otherwise the second half of the sentence would be without a verb, which seemed unlikely.

Ultimately I based my hunch (which may prove partly or entirely wrong) on pattern recognition, which I have cultivated over years of translating texts of various kinds. This hobby has sensitized me to seeking patterns in European languages that have been calqued on Latin.

It was good to hear from you. If you run across an authoritative translation of "Quamquam...," I'd appreciate your sharing it with me!

logologist|Talk 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logologist, very impressive. You truly are an asset to Wikipedia. Appleseed (Talk) 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your many contributions to Wikipedia, I, Appleseed, present you with the Original Barnstar. Keep up the great work! Appleseed (Talk) 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Appleseed. It is good to hear approval from someone whose own work I have long admired. logologist|Talk 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Inferus" is latin for "hell"! I can't believe I forgot that one. There's a poster in my bathroom that uses the phrase "ex inferus" (it's from some obscure rock band). *smacks head*
Anyway, that seems to meet your pattern theory and sounds even more like a quote or motto. Like: "Although we are in the depths of hell, we behold with the eyes of angels."
Eh? :)
Jreitsch 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great insight! My little Latin dictionary made no mention of "hell" or "Hades," but your version makes perfect sense. And it seems to be confirmed by my (much larger) New Cassell's French Dictionary: "enfer... Hell; infernal or lower regions... Au fond de l'enfer [!!], in the depths of hell..."

I suspect that my earlier version would work better if "oculos" ended instead in "-is" ("oculis"), which is closer to my concept of the instrumental case, plural. But, what with irregular declensions...

And I would guess the actual meaning of "tenebimus" to be closer to "we shall behold" or "may behold"...

In any case, your solution is so elegant that, if it's not correct, it should be. Congratulations! logologist|Talk 04:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless someone else pipes in somewhere I'm definitely satisfied with that translation, and I just wanted to post one last time to say thanks again, Logologist. This has been really fun! I can't wait til I find another obscure latin phrase to bring back and puzzle over with ya! :) :)
Jreitsch 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you for your opinion on the correct translation of several Polish awards. I'm trying to improve all the articles about Polish medals and I need to know what should I call some of them in English. There's a discussion about it on the WikiProject Poland notice board if you're interested in reading more.

I have the following translation problems so far (I haven't even looked at the obsolte medals): Is Krzyż Walecznych - Cross of the Valorous or Cross of the Valiant? Valorous is a somewhat archaic word, I think valiant is a more appropriate translation. I have two books that list this medal and they each use one of those words. Also Order Krzyża Wojskowego could be Military Cross but that's already an American award so perhaps I should name is Order of the Military Cross? Order Zasługi Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej could be Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland?

Thank you in advance. JRWalko 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would call Order Krzyża Wojskowego, "Military Cross (Poland)," since there already is a British Military Cross.

Order Zasługi Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej is "Order of Merit of Poland" ("Order of Merit (Poland)?) or "Cross of Merit," depending on exactly which similarly-named decoration, from which period, is meant. There is a British Order of Merit.

Krzyż Walecznych is "Cross of Valor." Someone once told me there is another Polish decoration that can be translated as "Cross of Valor." I'm not sure which decoration he meant; in any case, I think the elegant English rendering, "Cross of Valor," should be reserved for this important decoration. Krzyż Walecznych is, moreover, rendered as "Cross of Valor" in Zdzislaw P. Wesolowski, Polish Orders, Medals, Badges and Insignia: Military and Civilian Decorations, 1705-1985, Miami, 1986, ISBN 0-937-527-00-9.

Don't forget the ultimate Polish decoration for heroism: Za długoletnie pożycie małżeńskie ("For Long Years of Married Life"), established 1960, recognizing fifty years' married life.

Good luck. logologist|Talk 02:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll proceed with the new articles as you suggested.

Congratulations on deleting the "Bastardy" section from the article. It really was out of place, as written, but no one had shown your boldness of thought. (Regrettably, some touchy persons, themselves born out of wedlock, deleted a thought-provoking list of historic persons who had been born illegitimate.) logologist|Talk 02:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMO, it would make sense to take out the list of historic illegitament people. Wikipedia shouldn't be a list. It should be an encyclopedia. I don't think lists really belong in encyclopedias, since you can spend time elaborating, and talking about the subject at hand, instead of researching what(or who) belongs on what list. Since much time has elapsed between your note to me and my reply, I have this on both our talkpages. --Umalee 23:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the "Illegitimacy" article incorporated a list of several dozen historic persons who had been born "illegitimate." Following much controversy, someone separated the list out as an independent article; then someone saw to getting it deleted altogether.

There are many list-articles in Wikipedia, on just about every conceivable subject. I think such lists can stimulate thought, provide historic perspective, and facilitate research. It's too bad that the list of illegitimate persons apparently touched some raw nerves. logologist|Talk 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Uprising has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

nadav 06:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit has been made a centerpiece in an elaborate conspiracy theory. I wanted to ask if you if it was your edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Joseph%27s_Church_%28New_York_City%29&diff=prev&oldid=101802133--ChipotlePickle 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my edit. I know nothing of it. logologist|Talk 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Logologist, can you think of a better title for Poland's Betrothal with the Sea. The current title is an incorrect translation of Zaślubiny Polski z morzem. Appleseed (Talk) 15:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Poland's Wedding to the Sea." On each occasion, it was meant to be permanent. "Betrothal" is only a preliminary. logologist|Talk 20:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Appleseed (Talk) 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have done an outstanding job on the Edmund Charaszkiewicz article, but I have a question about one paragraph

this paragraph: Charaszkiewicz would later (February 1940, in Paris) describe the Polish military-intelligence operation in the Third Silesian Uprising as a model operation of its kind: its objectives were clearly defined; the requisite personnel were skilfully recruited and trained; the necessary explosives, weapons, ammunition, equipment and supplies were smuggled into the operational areas and cached well in advance; and the plans were efficiently and resourcefully executed. He would later favorably contrast the Third Silesian Uprising with the indecisive preparations for, and execution of, Poland's takeover of Zaolzie 17 years later, in 1938.

you have a list of references at the bottom, but do you have a specific citation to one or a couple of those references regarding this paragraph? I would like to know which one it comes from.

many thanks--Jadger 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is from Edmund Charaszkiewicz, Zbiór dokumentów... If you need the pages, I may be able to track them down after vacation, in early August. logologist|Talk 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you seen this [18]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Poles, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Poles. Thank you. – Jreferee ^(Talk)

Hi! After a somewhat long wiki-break I have discovered that the Template:Enlightenment has grown out of every proportion, and it is time to finally make a decision on inclusion. I remember you made plenty of contributions to the template. I am very sorry for spamming you, but it would be great if you came over to Template talk:Enlightenment and took part in a discussion on the whole thing. --AVIosad^(talk) 13:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again removed the superfluous images from Translation as they do not illustrate any visual aspect of the article topic. Before reverting, please explain your rationale on the talk page... I'd like to hear what your motivation is. Naturezak (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of May 3, 1791 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuti Militari has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Władysław Sikorski for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Witold Pilecki for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Battle of Warsaw (1920) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Novickas (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has awarded you a status of a honorary member (you have never officially joined the project by signing on its front page...). Thank you for your Poland-related encyclopedic contributions! Please consider officially joining the project by moving yourself from the "Honorary members" list to the "Active members" list here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned your name at this thread [19], in relation to an edit you made that subsequently appeared in an academic paper. Novickas (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed four paragraphs from Translation because they were word-for-word copies from a site on the Internet. I know that copyright can be confusing, but if you need any help, leave me a message on my talk page. --cbdorsett (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Logologist! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. 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 this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 17 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Louis Iribarne - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the primary editors of this article I wanted to let you know that someone submitted the Biuro Szyfrów article for GA. I reviewed the article, placed it on hold and left some comments on the talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Historic recurrence, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic recurrence until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gigs (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Translations by Christopher Kasparek, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translations by Seamus Heaney, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Talk:Voivodeships of Poland.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Encyklopedia Polski has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This publication fails WP:GNG - no coverage (reviews) in independent, reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 17 October 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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Encyklopedia Polski is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyklopedia Polski until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Politics in fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]