User talk:Balcer Archive 1
What an excellent image, showing the caldera so distinctly! Wetman 05:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Give me a list of polish translations and I'll create a polish version. -- Steschke 21:04, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
OR
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man ( comment| talk)
Hi there! To answer your questions:
Hope this resolves the issue. Please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 00:36, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
You are quite right about the search engines. This issue was already brought up before (also here and on Russian Wikipedia as well). Mr. Monedula, I believe, was the one who started accenting Russian words, not without protests from other users. The issue seems to come back up every once in a while. So, here's a summary of previous discussions:
— Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:17, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, cool that you spread the template to the Polish Wikipedia. Several things you should be aware of if you aren't already:
Tnx for the info. I uploaded the map to WikiCommons, so it can be used on all Wikis now. [[Image:poland_partitions_1772.jpg]]-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tnx for the info, I added the news to Wikinews, see Wikinews Main Page. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I thought so. Still, what they say - if you copy from one source, you are violating copyright, if you copy from a dozen, you have wiki :) And it is 1-2 paragraphs in few dozens, in our case. I am all for rewriting the copied parts, but I will leave that up to ppl more familiar with English prose. Plus some changing order, etc., and in a few days there should be no problem. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you mean the following phrase rv by Emax: "Anti-Polonism" is a controversial term even in Poland, and some people discourage or avoid its use. For example, it does not appear in the Polish Wikipedia, nor in the official online encyclopedia PWN. In fact, it is not even listed in the official Polish dictionary [1]. I would have to agree with him that it is mostly unecessary. Why it is a controversial term, the fact that it does not appear in Polish Wiki or PWN is hardly immportant, since 1) enWiki is bigger then plWiki and many Polish specific entries are better covered in enWiki 2) same goes for enWiki vs PWN. I will try to read through the rest of the discussion, but if I am missing sth key important here do leave me another msg. Btw, how is the work on PSW related international missions going? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Anti-polonism is rarely used - I count about ~300 hits on Google for various spellings, and not a single one on Google Schoolar. So I want mind if the main article is under a longer, more descriptive title, and the current one becomes a redirect - you are right Wiki is no place for new names*. As for sectioning - I think there is no need to create more separate articles, all should fit as normal section headings into one single article. And IMHO Emax English is good enough for a discussion - if it is good enough for him to write articles :> Few grammar mistake are better then discussion in a language totally illegible to 99% of Wiki contributors. * Note I have a similar name problem with my article on Moldavian Magnate Wars - the term I invented since I couldn't find any real name - the descriptive Cossack-Habsburg-Moldivian-Polish-Ottoman-Transylvanian War of 1593-1622 is a tad to long and literature I could find simply refers to the shorter 1-3 years wars by dates or rather erroneusly refers to the P-O conflict. :D-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bylbym wdzieczny gdybys zerknal na Talk:Blitzkrieg#Inaccurate_changes i ten revert. Byc moze nie mam racji - nie chce samotnie zaczynac rv wara z tym 119. Ale jesli uwazasz, ze mam racje, bylbym wdzieczny gdybys wspomnial o tym na talku tej strony i ew. zrewertowal 119. Dzieki. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I co ja mogę powiedzieć - Emax niekiedy zachowuje się poniżej krytyki. Jako Polak moge cię przeprosić za jego zachowanie, ale jako admin jedyne co mogę zrobić to go zabanować, a to jednak nieco przesadzone. Proponuję, abyś w przypadku konfliktu albo używał Wikipedia:Requests for comments albo, jeśli sprawa jest mniej ważna (a te szczegóły z Anti-polonismu nie są tak kluczowe - zachowywał się zgodnie z przysłowiem, że 'cymbał brzęczy, a milczenie złotem' i odczekał, aż się wszyscy uspokoją. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hello Balcer, on October 5, 2004 you wrote something on Roads and Expressways in Poland about a planned A3-project (running from Szczecin south to the Czech border), that was turned into an Expressway S3-project. I am very interested in that project. Do you have any more information about that or sources I could look up? You can contact me here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Emailuser/Lc95 Thank you in advance.-- Lc95en 09:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Do you know more info about Zaklikow? Could you help improving the article? Any idea of more history pre 1940 and post 1945?-- AAAAA 15:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User talk:Balcer Archive 1
What an excellent image, showing the caldera so distinctly! Wetman 05:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Give me a list of polish translations and I'll create a polish version. -- Steschke 21:04, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
OR
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man ( comment| talk)
Hi there! To answer your questions:
Hope this resolves the issue. Please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 00:36, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
You are quite right about the search engines. This issue was already brought up before (also here and on Russian Wikipedia as well). Mr. Monedula, I believe, was the one who started accenting Russian words, not without protests from other users. The issue seems to come back up every once in a while. So, here's a summary of previous discussions:
— Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:17, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, cool that you spread the template to the Polish Wikipedia. Several things you should be aware of if you aren't already:
Tnx for the info. I uploaded the map to WikiCommons, so it can be used on all Wikis now. [[Image:poland_partitions_1772.jpg]]-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tnx for the info, I added the news to Wikinews, see Wikinews Main Page. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I thought so. Still, what they say - if you copy from one source, you are violating copyright, if you copy from a dozen, you have wiki :) And it is 1-2 paragraphs in few dozens, in our case. I am all for rewriting the copied parts, but I will leave that up to ppl more familiar with English prose. Plus some changing order, etc., and in a few days there should be no problem. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you mean the following phrase rv by Emax: "Anti-Polonism" is a controversial term even in Poland, and some people discourage or avoid its use. For example, it does not appear in the Polish Wikipedia, nor in the official online encyclopedia PWN. In fact, it is not even listed in the official Polish dictionary [1]. I would have to agree with him that it is mostly unecessary. Why it is a controversial term, the fact that it does not appear in Polish Wiki or PWN is hardly immportant, since 1) enWiki is bigger then plWiki and many Polish specific entries are better covered in enWiki 2) same goes for enWiki vs PWN. I will try to read through the rest of the discussion, but if I am missing sth key important here do leave me another msg. Btw, how is the work on PSW related international missions going? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Anti-polonism is rarely used - I count about ~300 hits on Google for various spellings, and not a single one on Google Schoolar. So I want mind if the main article is under a longer, more descriptive title, and the current one becomes a redirect - you are right Wiki is no place for new names*. As for sectioning - I think there is no need to create more separate articles, all should fit as normal section headings into one single article. And IMHO Emax English is good enough for a discussion - if it is good enough for him to write articles :> Few grammar mistake are better then discussion in a language totally illegible to 99% of Wiki contributors. * Note I have a similar name problem with my article on Moldavian Magnate Wars - the term I invented since I couldn't find any real name - the descriptive Cossack-Habsburg-Moldivian-Polish-Ottoman-Transylvanian War of 1593-1622 is a tad to long and literature I could find simply refers to the shorter 1-3 years wars by dates or rather erroneusly refers to the P-O conflict. :D-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bylbym wdzieczny gdybys zerknal na Talk:Blitzkrieg#Inaccurate_changes i ten revert. Byc moze nie mam racji - nie chce samotnie zaczynac rv wara z tym 119. Ale jesli uwazasz, ze mam racje, bylbym wdzieczny gdybys wspomnial o tym na talku tej strony i ew. zrewertowal 119. Dzieki. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I co ja mogę powiedzieć - Emax niekiedy zachowuje się poniżej krytyki. Jako Polak moge cię przeprosić za jego zachowanie, ale jako admin jedyne co mogę zrobić to go zabanować, a to jednak nieco przesadzone. Proponuję, abyś w przypadku konfliktu albo używał Wikipedia:Requests for comments albo, jeśli sprawa jest mniej ważna (a te szczegóły z Anti-polonismu nie są tak kluczowe - zachowywał się zgodnie z przysłowiem, że 'cymbał brzęczy, a milczenie złotem' i odczekał, aż się wszyscy uspokoją. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hello Balcer, on October 5, 2004 you wrote something on Roads and Expressways in Poland about a planned A3-project (running from Szczecin south to the Czech border), that was turned into an Expressway S3-project. I am very interested in that project. Do you have any more information about that or sources I could look up? You can contact me here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Emailuser/Lc95 Thank you in advance.-- Lc95en 09:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Do you know more info about Zaklikow? Could you help improving the article? Any idea of more history pre 1940 and post 1945?-- AAAAA 15:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)