![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
Hello, Nihil novi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -
SpuriousQ (
talk)
23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
|
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Witam Nihil novi,
i think it is described on Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons - in short; download the image from de on your computer. Next go to commons and upload it there; done ;o) .... of course dont forget to name the uploader and the source (a link; not just de-wiki ;o) ) - the best is; just copy every information from de to commons; so nothing can get lost ... after you did this is would be nice if you would inform me. Than i could delete the image on de and use the commons-version as well. .... Ansers please on my german talk page ... Sicherlich Post 18:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) PS: maybe you could give on de:Benutzer:Nihil novi a link to your english page. Would be more compfortable to find you here ;)
... has moved. Regards, 149.229.98.21 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine fine fine, have it your way, Copernicus is Polish, Alexander is Greek and Leonardo is Italian, right - way to educate the masses. A lead is supposed to introduce the subject right? In the book I'm looking at, what I added is in the first sentence. It isn't an "unnecessary intrusion" but then I'm now so mad with this pile of inaccuracy, I'll take my input elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.147.29 ( talk) 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
Sorry for my imperfect revert there. It's fixed now. -- Guinnog 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why you remove from Joseph Conrad´s article the fact that he witnessed as a small boy the decline and dramatic death of his mother and later the death of his father. Andreanrc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andreanrc ( talk • contribs) 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
You made far reaching edits to article Sukiennice. However, the term "Drapers' Hall" means not what you intended. It is mostly the Herbert James Draper Hall in London or a male dorm at Oklahoma University. [1] Meanwhile, the previous well established term used to describe Sukiennice can be traced back to other similar structures written about in Wikipedia, such as:
I don't want to get entangled in reverting your creative edits, so please bring the "cloth hall" back by yourself. Thanks. -- Poeticbent talk 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Why did you revert the article? J. D. Redding 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
My bad. Could have sworn I'd recently seen it written "Frantiszek"...but maybe I've just gone all Czech again. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. K. Lásztocska 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Some time ago I corrected the wrong form "Warsaw University" to "University of Warsaw", providing extensive explanations in the Talk page, why one is wrong and the other is right. You have undone my correction and the reasons you give for your change show that you have not read my explanations. I do not want to engage into any kind of editing wars, but please, read my explanations and would you please revert your change yourself? Yours Fon 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please consider the following statement, which comes from the official website of the University:
We kindly inform you that in accordance with the new Statute of Warsaw University of June 21, 2006, the English name of our institution has been changed as of October 1, 2006 to the University of Warsaw. Both names ( Warsaw University, University of Warsaw) are equally valid and may be used on information materials/symbols etc., until the end of academic year 2006/07 - that is, until September 30, 2007.
Other explanations are provided in my request for the moving of the article. Fon 21:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy edit. Much better now. Dr. Dan 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an
edit summary. Thank you. --
Doctormatt
19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
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) 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nihil novi, I just wanted to tell you that the same annoying (un-)discussion on the relevance of standards and on a readable and informative way of mentioning them is going on in the German article on translation... I'll try to find the time to write a new section on the standards for the German version asap and see whether this will work as a compromise. If it does, I'll let you know so you can put it here. All the best. -- Margit Brause 06:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I like your user name (regardless of whether it means "nothing new without the consensus of all" or "nothing new under the sun"). I've appreciated your edits to the Spiritualism article, but I would like to undo a few of those in the current round. I'm happy with the new headings, but not so happy with some of the images. Spiritualism was an historical movement, with millions of ordinary people, and I picked out a few images to show that. I was very fond of the Swedish painting, since it showed a group of ordinary middle-class people, and the painter Richard Berghe managed to convey the excitement they felt. The images of Swedenborg and Mesmer leave me cold, they are just static and formal portraits, with little hint of the person inside. I like the Fox Sisters, Podmore, Price, and Houdini images, I'm willing to accept the Conan Doyle image, but I would drop the Mary Todd Lincoln and Frederick Douglass portraits. All kinds of people inveighed for or against Spiritualism, and the article should avoid simply cataloging the celebrities. If you would like to leave the Lincoln story in the text, you should add a source, since before your edit everything in the text was sourced. Douglass doesn't belong here--if you wish to add a celebrity critic, Henry James would be the obvious choice.
I also have an issue with the captions. I wrote captions to encourage the reader to look more closely at the images, and also to give some hint of why the image was important. I would like to retain the original captions on the Chicago women image and on the Swedish mesmerist image. I also liked the "practical jokes" line in the first image.
In my opinion, the article's most pressing need is to eliminate the red links. We need to make stubs for the Seybert Commission, Amy and Isaac Post, and Achsa W. Sprague.-- Anthon.Eff 15:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
See WP:PUNC#Brackets. Stylistically, punctuation should be used outside parentheticals when not enclosing a quotation or for less than a sentence. It's also house style on Wikipedia. — Viriditas | Talk 22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the spelling error on the Copernicus talk page. Guldenat 03:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've put in for a 3RR intervention, but it's so slow! Just thought I'd let you know. Maybe we should take this to elsewhere on WP:ANI. This is ridiculous. Dreadstar † 08:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi, thanks for the update on my German talk page. The German article had to be put under protection as well, which seems to have stopped the trouble. I'm sorry I haven't been able to do anything constructive for the English article these last few weeks. -- Margit Brause 07:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi, I am going to back off of Translation for now so that I am not in danger of 3RR myself, but Eurominuteman is probably not going to back off. From my point of view, his current edits are very similar to his previous ones. In what I think must be his form of compromise, he is changing the title of sections he disagrees with to "Quick and Dirty methods", and adding in a section entitled "Enhanced Methods". If you can help, that'd be cool or I'll wait until tomorrow and remove this blatant POV (also persistant linkspam). Thanks Man It's So Loud In Here 17:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
How about making some substantial contributions to the discussion? -- Itskoolman 10:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor with periodically mutating IP addresses, aka Eurominuteman, aka Itskoolman, was blocked from editing Wikipedia on September 20, 2007, at last bringing peace to " Translation." Reportedly he had earlier created the same chaos at the same article on the German Wikipedia, with the same ultimate result. It is remarkable how much turmoil and enervation can be wrought by one person. Nihil novi 07:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion over at
Talk:Translation#Images is somewhat circular; can I entice you to join the conversation?
Naturezak (
talk)
19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you have access to that publication - that's great; the more you can reference and expand this article, the better :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
¿Why does Copernicus was not a Polish and Dürer and Beethoven were Germans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationalism Patrol ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- PFHLai 14:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
And what that means: Minoritenkirche, Vienna, Französischer Dom, Stadtschloss, Berlin, Konzerthausorchester Berlin, Zoologischer Garten Berlin, Berliner Dom, Rotes Rathaus, Votivkirche, Augustinerkirche, Jesuitenkirche, Vienna, Ruprechtskirche, Kapuzinerkirche, Dresdner Frauenkirche, Grünes Gewölbe, Palais Strousberg, Schloß Pötzleinsdorf, Palais Königswarter, Berlin Hauptbahnhof. Could you please translate me this? My English is terrible, as you probably noticed when you corrected some of my articles. I'll be very grateful. Polaco77 23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Nontheism and List of nontheists have been nominated for deletion. As an editor of one or both of these articles, I thought you should know. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists. Thanks. Nick Graves 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi! How are you? Why did you voted for keep? Was that because of your friendship with Nick Graves? Please reconsider your decision. Thank you. RS1900 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, you've got me right. Not only self-counscious but also with separate foreign policy, treasury, army and most other official institutions. If the federal formulation seems too confusing, we might discuss it. Con-federal maybe?-- Lokyz 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, due to chronic vandalism, " Perfection" was semi-protected for 2 months, with possibility of 4-month extension if warranted; and " Marie Curie," without expiration date. What a relief! Nihil novi 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Another link from Prometheism. Perhaps you could proofread / expand a little? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add this link into every article which is mentioned in Prometheism. If we start adding each term ino each article mentioned in the article about the term, we will have a complete mess. The "see also" section is for things essentially expanding the current subject or for siimilar topics. We don't write fork in "see also" for beefsteak, do we? `' Míkka 06:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski, since you copyedited the article and work on related subjects. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page
Leon Schiller worked, and it has been
reverted or removed. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to
our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
ZacBowling
talk
21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Why did you add {{ TOCleft}} in the article ' Bolesław Prus? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 10:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
To close the blank area that now glares at the reader from beneath the lead? What do you mean by that? Look, almost all biographies do not have the table of contents at the top. That's why I removed {{ TOCleft}}. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit (revert) at the Copernicus article. May I ask your opinion regarding the continual reverting of Vilnius to "Vilna (modern Vilnius)", by several (I believe biased) editors? Their rationale is that Vilna has been the earlier English language geographical toponym, and therefore must be used on WP. Your honest opinion on the matter and the difference between applying the same logic with Cracow (modern Kraków) would be greatly appreciated. Dr. Dan ( talk) 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
For copyediting Józef Piłsudski article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Nihil novi:
Why did you revert, without explanation, these 2 edits of mine: [2] and [3]? You reverted my edits in this edit of yours: [4]. Finell (Talk) 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC) (I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
I noticed this edit : I hope you didn't take my comment too seriously? I was grateful for your (and Folantin's) support, but it didn't help in the end, given Honorkell's refusal to be convinced by my logic. I fully support your move to get random cultural references removed. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 07:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could comment at Talk:Nobilitation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
On December 7, I requested a further 4 months' semi-protection for " Perfection," which since its de-protection on November 30 had undergone 18 changes (vandalizations and their reversals) with no net change in text. Semi-protection was granted by User:Piotrus. "Expires 00:00, December 15, 2008." Nihil novi 05:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi! How are you? Are you a Pole? Many of your edits are related to Poland. You have made lots of edits to Frédéric Chopin, Bolesław Prus, List of Poles, Józef Piłsudski, Nicolaus Copernicus, Marie Curie, History of philosophy in Poland, etc. I think you are an interesting person. Why don't you mention few things about you in your user page? I wish you all the best. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Nihil novi. I hope you are well. I would like to request a clarification regarding this, as you did not produce it during your automated revert. I intuit that you may think that following words are my interpretation It was highly significant that Piłsudski could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation, but a Lithuanian of Polish culture. It is not, these are similar words taken from Norman Davies history book Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland. Exact quote would be as follows: It was highly significant that Piłsudski could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation - which he once derided as "a nation of morons" - but a Lithuanian of Polish culture (Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland p.139). Please take a look that in my version I did not included a nation of morons part (despite a fact that I think it is very useful to describe Pilsudski’s beliefs). By your revert and simplification of presented material (which is Piłsudski sometimes spoke of being a Lithuanian of Polish culture) we lost valuable information, mainly parts It was highly significant and could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation, in other words your edited text hardly represents main aspects of original quote and probably could be seen as original research. What is also important that in your interpretation of provided original quote is weasel-worded , which is not good for Future Article candidate. For these reasons I restored my original formulation of words. M.K. ( talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's going to be a bit of work to get a new translation article in order, and port that material from Formal and Dynamic Equivalence to other relevant pages. Any thoughts before I begin to plot the course? Naturezak ( talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi can you please provide a more meaningful edit summary other than "Edit." as you did on this edit. That you did edit the article is self-evident - even putting no edit summary in reports that you edited the article - but if you can put something in which identifies what or how you edited the article that would be great.
Ga rr ie 23:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Why did you reverted my edits? Please see the biographies of most people. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, articles should not be moved, as you did to
Polish Biographical Dictionary, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some
guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
12:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! I read the biography of Nicolaus Copernicus and there are some useful information about him. Thanks for your contributions to the biography of Copernicus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't yet researched M-morze properly; it is still on my 'to do' list; hence I can speak with much confidence about the naming variants :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did you put the first image on the Chopin article on the LEFT side of the screen??? All of the Wikipedia pages in Polish and English (and French) have the FIRST image on the RIGHT side of the screen? Charvex ( talk) 09:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This useful template will tell other users what languages you can speak. You can also add an infobox from WP:PWNB that will tell them you are a member of our little project :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to edit and expand this article one day, considering it served as an inspiration to your Wikipedia nickname :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Happy New Year! Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 08:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Spiritualism might be ready for nomination to GA status. Since your work on the headings and adding new images, very little has been added, so it seems that it has hit a period of equilibrium. What do you think--should I nominate it? -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class | |
I, Tymek ( talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC), am awarding you this Barnstar, as a gesture of appreciation. Your good work on Poland-related articles is highly regarded. Keep it up! |
Thank you for copyediting and expanding the article. Could you add citations for the new facts you've added? Particularly for the considerations about the museum in Belweder; I'd like to read more about it. Aren't there plans for a museum in his mansion in Sulejówek? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I am a little confused about the nationality of Nicolaus Copernicus. I think the following statement should be verified:
"Indeed, he might have considered himself to be both at the same time."
In many books Copernicus is regarded as Polish. However, at that time, there was no Polish State. Can you explain me why Copernicus is commonly regarded as Polish? I am not from Poland. However, I am interested in Poland and Polish history. You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the
preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up
recent changes and the
page history. Thank you. Regards,
High on a tree (
talk)
08:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. MOS#Images clearly says that Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary and list cases where the image width should be included. If there is something wrong, try to reconfigure thumbnail size in your user preferences. Visor ( talk) 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't have done it without help from you and other good editors! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Spiritualism small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Anthon.Eff ( talk) 18:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Any reason why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/4.79.230.76 might have removed the sizing on the images and TOC tab?
I do not know ... is it a Wiki thing? -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Congratulations! Today I noticed that Józef Piłsudski has achieved FA status. You made significant contributions to the article. Well done. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comment about "limited attention span" was rude and sophomoric. For my part, I actually have read a lot about Piłsudski and find him a fascinating personality. But in the grand scheme of things, Piłsudski is not a major historical figure, globally speaking.
BTW, I also have lived in Poland, however briefly, and Lithuania.
Sca ( talk) 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Always a pleasure. In the future don't hesitate to nominate yourself, it's common practice - and I have so many things to do... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can find and cite an old version of the page in the Internet Archive? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated. Is the horse notable or not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Lucy has been blocked indefinitely ( User_talk:Lucyintheskywithdada#Blocked). Don't forget to respond to the survey at Talk:Spiritualism#Requested_move. Thanks! -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I have added Infobox Writer to the biography of Prus. You can add some information. And, I think we can promote the article to GA status. Can you please find some more information about Prus? You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I asked you to inform Piotrus about this because he is from Poland. I made the template by studying other similar templates. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil. I didn't know that in Poland, the movement was called simply "Positivism," not "Polish Positivism". However, the term Positivism is generally associated with Sociology. It will be confusing to non-Polish person like me. And, I didn't know that in Polish, women's names take feminine endings. Few things in the biography will be confusing to non-Polish people. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 07:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Nihil. I think we should discuss about Prus on the talk page of Bolesław Prus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. You citied the references and notes in an incorrect manner! You should have used the citation template. See: Template:Citation. I also believe that the biography of Prus can achieve FA status. We have to correct the references and notes. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled about the "retrieved [date]" information-items for The Polish Review sources, in the new citation templates. Are these articles actually available on-line? Or are these simply errors? Nihil novi ( talk) 05:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
What is Wspomnienia o Bolesławie Prusie? Book, journal, or article? And, What do you mean by "note 7"? What was the volume? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil. You added the following:
Prus was not alone in advocating the development of science and technology. It was part of the spirit of the times. The great Polish mathematician Kazimierz Kuratowski writes that in the period when Poland was under complete foreign rule (1795–1918) "It was a common belief that the cultivation of science and the growth of its potential would somehow guarantee the maintenance of the [Polish] nation." (A Half Century of Polish Mathematics: Remembrances and Reflections, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1980, p. 2.)
Did you modify the text? We have to modify the text to avoid copy-right violation. What is the name of the author? Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil. According to the article "Eventually released on account of his youth, in 1866 he completed secondary school and enrolled in science at the University of Warsaw." However, according to this website, Prus graduated in 1868. Which one is correct? If the information provided by the website is false, I will remove it from the section External Links. Did Prus studied Physics and Mathematics at Warsaw? And, do you have books that are citied on the article? The article is nominated for the GA status. Many users are watching the biography. We have to get all correct information. And, are Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy and Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej publishing companies? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 08:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I think you should see the article. The article is very good and it is probably the best biography of Prus on the Internet. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I, MusicalConnoisseur, award you this barnstar for your tireless work on the Frédéric Chopin article. It is an article that deserves such serious attention, and I thank you for it! ~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
P.S.: You might want to add a few of these awards onto your userpage...it might spruce it up a bit. :) -- ~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Thank you for the award. And, I think you are a great editor. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 06:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to be an ass about this ... but that was pure vandalism. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I noticed that you created the article Apollo Korzeniowski. Great job. The biography is very good. I have nominated it for DYK. I think the name of the book is Apollo Korzeniowski. Correct? Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I have created a new list called List of Polish novelists. I know that a list called List of Poles already exists. However, the list is simply too long and thus, I felt that it would be better to create a seperate list. The list provides many information that a category cannot provide (such as the name of novel written by a novelist). I would like you to see the list. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Thank you for your note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 02:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar, I will cut it out and wear it when I go somewhere. Thanks again Tymek ( talk) 17:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you didn't like my recent edit concerning Milosz being "Lithuanian born", and I prefer, if possible, to iron these things out on the talk pages before getting into an edit war. What knowledge do you have concerning the Polish demographics in Šeteniai (right in the heart of Lithuania) that might explain your edit summary? Also, would you agree that following your logic, it would open a "can of worms" as so many "Polish persons of notability" were not born in Poland, but in the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian Empires? Should we change the Joseph Conrad article and make him a Ukrainian born English writer, and the Pilsudski article to his being Russian born? And Marie Curie and all the rest? What's your opinion? I prefer not to cherry pick out certain personalities, but to keep a consistency in the articles one way or the other. I believe that even in the Russian Empire the geographical area known as Lithuania, was called that. Just the same, looking at the whole picture, how do you perceive this in an objective manner? Dr. Dan ( talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am curious to what exactly this unsourced anecdote brings to the article? Ostap 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You can edit this article, replacing the link by your text. Xx236 ( talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
When you select Tadeusz Bobrowski you see a link on the top of the Conrad article to Tadeusz Bobrowski one. Xx236 ( talk) 08:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class | |
I award Nihil novi "The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class" for his outstanding contributions to Poland-related articles. Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to Nihil novi by Masterpiece2000 ( talk) on 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hello Nihil novi. You have received "The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class" award twice. This shows that your contributions are quite outstanding. I also think that you should mention few things about you or your contributions on your user page. You have made significant contributions for Wikipedia. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Great news! You deserve most credit for this. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In reverting the Page Move I made for Triple Cross Square by declaring Three Crosses Square to be "clumsy English", you neglect to take into account:
Kindly relate to the above remarks ASAP so we can proceed with appropriate editing. -- Thank you, Deborahjay ( talk) 09:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. The article Bolesław Prus should be promoted to the FA status. I have created a new list called List of works by Bolesław Prus. Please help me. Please add information about the work of Prus on the list. The list is modeled after List of Max Weber works. You can add all the information that we cannot add in the biography of Prus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, we need to include all the fiction he ever wrote. And, if they don't have English title, just Polish name will do. According to you, Prus must have written some 2,000 of these "Weekly Chronicles." Some notable "Weekly Chronicles" can be included. You can also include some obscure stuff. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I created a new section 'Notable works by Bolesław Prus' and redirected the list 'List of works by Bolesław Prus' to 'Notable works by Bolesław Prus'. You can add information in that section. The biography is ready for the FA status. What's your views? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 10:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ziemia Obiecana -> redirect to The Promised Land (about a 1974 movie). I've just created a stub on The Promised Land (novel) - but I think the novel should be under the generic title, not the movie. What do you think? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Thank you for your contributions to the article Boleslaw Prus. Now, the article is even better. I think the article should be nominated for the FA status after one month. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the {{
prod}}
template to the article
Illegitimacy in fiction, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and
Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at
its talk page. If you remove the {{
prod}}
template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
BJBot (
talk)
01:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 09:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could read through and see if there is anything to improve in Armia Krajowa (soon to be a FA candidate) and Polish culture during World War II (a current GA candidate). Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Stories grow. Please list a PRIMARY source for the Palladino levitation story. The date may have some importance. Primary source :After Death-What by Cesare Lombroso, the father of Phrenology, Experiments with Palladino, 1908 p 49-50, tells us the levitation took place in the dark. The only proofs seem to be that Palladino says she will rise in her chair and land on the table, her hands were held and the feeling of hands on the top of the investigators' heads. Nothing is seen. Look at Uri Geller and my boy Ingo Swann. They did their tricks in the light before modern day scientists and the CIA. The belief in magick and superstition is alive and well. It always will be too! That is why the critical investigations of magicians who specialize in deception and fraud is important. Just as it was when people were being executed for being witches. Drop by and say hello. Kazuba ( talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Wizardman 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Daniel Case ( talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I hope you are doing well. Nihil, the article Boleslaw Prus is still not ready for the FA status. The lead of the article should be expanded and there are other flaws. We have to correct those flaws.
And, nice to know that you have contributed to so many DYKs. You have also contributed to one FA article, one GA and received three awards. I think you should mention that on your user page. It will help other users to know your great contributions for Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate you reading through the Łódź insurrection (1905). See comments on talk. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I hope you are doing well. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Your contributions and comments will be helpful. And, after this FA, I will focus on Bolesław Prus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of years ago I was at a party and a Polish girl I was talking to was adamant that Poland wasn't in "Eastern Europe". No, no, no ... it was in "Western Europe" she insisted (she didn't say "Central Europe"). She told me Poland was Catholic and had a great monarchy a few centuries ago as if this somehow proved it was in Western Europe. Anyways, I asked "What then is in Eastern Europe ... just Russia?" She said "No, Russia is in Asia", leaving me wondering exactly where Eastern Europe was. I mean, is eastern Europe supposed to be confined inside a line thinner than a pencil a little west of Brest-Litovsk? Anyways, seriously, it's just an arbitrary border ... used commonly in English to refer to those countries that were Communist. Western Europeans are extraordinarily self-centered and insular. The center of Europe for them lies in Belgium and the Franco-German border. It's nothing you should get worked up about. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 00:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)elusive
The wise way to address the controversial claims of our Polish partners to Stefan Banach is to acknowledge his European Ukrainian origins and background. Europe is our common home and Poles should have their say too. Let's stop arguing. As a citizen of Ukrainian Lviv, Banach is both Ukrainian and European. Let's call him a European mathematician. I hope Poles would agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 ( talk) 09:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nihil Novi! Congrats on the Chopin article so far, but I think this sentence: "Chopin was born in the village of Żelazowa Wola, in the Duchy of Warsaw, to a Polish mother and French- expatriate father, and came to be regarded as a child-prodigy pianist." in fact does need a "he" between "and" and "came." See this question raised at the reference desk. -- La Pianísta! 21:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I have created Category:WikiProject Poland participants. You can add the category on your user page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Your views here would be much appreciated. Thanks. Rohirok ( talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising and censoring Talk:Stefan_Banach and Stefan_Banach.
This discussion page contains discussions of Stefan Banach, including his important contributions to Ukrainian mathematics and his work in Lviv, Ukraine.
You initiated a new discussion topic at Talk:Stefan_Banach by suggesting to delete the section from an article on Stefan_Banach describing his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics. Immediately after initiating this discussion, you moved the entire body of the earlier discussions into the archive. You repeated this censorship attempt several times, after the discussion was restored.
The section Contributions to Ukrainian mathematics contains important facts on Banach's contributions to Ukrainian science and Ukrainian mathematics in particular. There are substantial plans to continue the work on expanding this particular section, as well as other sections of the Stefan_Banach article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 ( talk) 05:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
During your most recent censorship attempt, along with archiving the previous discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach, you deleted the section from this discussion that documented and condemned your censorship.
Please cease your censorship attempts and desist from them in the future. Respect the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 ( talk) 05:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in contributing to this new article I created. I plan to expand it soon; for now I concentrated on collecting sources for expansion (hence the long list of elinks and books and such).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought you may want to add your name to Wikipedia:PWNB#Participants_list.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you please write a plot summary for this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for creating the article about Tadeusz Puszczyński. I was going to do it, but I have been busy recently. Anyway, I will try to expand it. BTW I have noticed your work on the Wawelberg Group, good job! I see you are interested in this unknown part of Polish military history. Tymek ( talk) 01:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil! Your new article Tadeusz Puszczyński is very good! Great job! Can you add some more references in the article? It might qualify for DYK. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You will need to stop archiving the on-going discussion of Stefan Banach.
This discussion page is not large enough to justify archiving.
You will not be allowed to censor the discussion by moving it into the archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 ( talk) 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I am mainly interested in history of Poland from 1939 to present. I have studied how Polish people lived under communism. I know many things about Nicolas Copernicus. I have also studied about Frederic Chopin. He is quite popular.
I have to say few things about Chopin. In fact, I knew about Chopin before I knew about Boleslaw Prus.
I haven't edited the article Frederic Chopin because others like you are doing a fine job. I was doing some research on Chopin and I have found something interesting about him. See: [7]. I think we should mention about it in the article.
I was busy with other areas of Wikipedia. Hopefully I can make some contributions to the biography of Chopin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought you may want to comment on his request.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I withdrew my RfA. Thank you for supporting my RfA. Most editors who opposed my RfA expressed that I need to argue better in AfDs. I will take care about the concerns raised by them and apply again after sometime. Your support was really encouraging. If you have any suggestion for me, feel free to post a note on my talk page. Take care, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 12:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
...on your fine message to Masterpiece2000, regarding his RfA. I am glad to know like-minded individuals are online. :) Ecoleetage ( talk) 21:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Nihil novi, I think the links are not supposed to connect to categories. I think there is another way. I added Category:Bolesław Prus to "Bolesław Prus" at commons. See: [8]. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
On a short article I nominated for GA: Election sejm of 1632.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding your article to "See also" links to biographies. It really isn't necessary. It's like adding Brunette to a biography. Pointless. -- Merbabu ( talk) 08:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my contributions about Triple Cross Square. Can you also check my other article - AmRest? ;) Best regards Danziger100 ( talk) 14:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mononymous persons, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mononymous persons. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jdrewitt ( talk) 19:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Done! And thanks for creating the article Mononymous persons. It's a good article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 06:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
It's nice to see you drop back in again...although I haven't edited much of the article, I still watch it on my watchlist and am passionate about its subject. I'm just curious (now seeing you are online, as well), what are your goals with the article? Acheive FA someday, maybe? — LaPianista! «talk» 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
—
LaPianista!
«talk» has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Nihil. When I logged in, discussions were already closed. I would have voted "Keep". Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Nihil. I created the biography of Hubert Markl. He received the Order of Merit Star, Poland. Do you know anything about the Order of Merit Star, Poland? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought the previous discussions (entertainer/porn actor) were closed in error by a biased admin. I feel this even more at this junction. How do you assess this process? (I'm querying Cosmic Latte similarly.) __ meco ( talk) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nihil novi.
Thank you for the translation of the article about Stjepan Musulin.
I saw that you've created the category about Polish-Croatian translators, so I'll give you some names that translated from Polish to Croatian:
Pero Mioč,
Zdravko Malić,
Zoran Bundyk,
Julije Benešić,
Iso Velikanović,
Milivoj Slaviček...
[9]. AFAIK, Polish poetess
Lucja Daniełewska was translating from Croatian to Polish.
Kamarad Walter (
talk)
08:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I've sent you an email. I also feel that you should archive your talk page discussions. It's very long. You can create a subpage User talk:Nihil novi/Archive 1 and copy and paste about 100 messages to that subpage. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nihil novi. I've created my account on Polish Wikipedia. I don't speak Polish, but I can still make contributions. I can add images, infobox, etc. In fact, I've already made some contributions. I've a question: How do you say "Hi" in Polish? And I hope to see you on Polish Wikipedia.
Regards,
Masterpiece2000 (
talk)
13:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was about three or four weeks ago now that you and I crossed paths on the article History of the World. I reread our discussion on the talk page, and then read some entries on your own talk page, and I want to apologize for being so terse and abrasive. I guess thought I sensed some kind of political bias in the wording, and it was also one of my first experiences using a talk page, so I didn't know how those things usually go. Anyhow, you appear to be a very cordial and friendly editor, and I promise to be more jolly in the future! MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil Novi.
Why did you remove the cite tag from the Chopin article? I think we should add a source, rather than remove the tag outright. — La Pianista ( T• C• S• R) 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you know when was this photo first published, and who is the author? Copyright paranoia team asks for proof it was published before 1994... sigh. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you keep making some changes to the William Playfair article format, and I referted some changes. The thing is that I use one kind of format in all articles I wikified and I like to keep it that way. William Playfair is part of a series of articles about visualization who all have the same format and I like to keep it that way. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are you deleting reliably sourced material in which "Year 3333" is described as a precursor of the Zydokomuna concept? Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Łaski's Statute.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The DYK Medal | |
In recognition of your efforts for DYK, and hopefully more great articles to come. Thank you for your well-written contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
In the area? You're invited to | |
San Francisco Meetup # 8 | |
![]() | |
Date: November 8th, 2008 | |
Time: 2PM | |
Place: Metacafe, Palo Alto, California | |
prev: Meetup 7 - next: Meetup 9 |
Since I know you are interested in this subject, a third opinion could be useful regarding this. Do you think that this metaphor is relevant? I find it nice, but not encyclopedic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you think? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Adam Stanisław Grabowski at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —
Politizer
talk/
contribs
02:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Tadeusz Pełczyński at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Art LaPella (
talk)
20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have been working on this article for some time. I am pleased to see that you, a much more experienced editor than myself, has an interest in it. I have just altered a chunk from my sandbox that, I think improves the article. There will be more to follow. I may have accidentally undone some of your recent edits in the 'Polish breakthrough' and 'World war II' sections. I will try to repair any damage, but please accept my apologies if I am not entirely successful. TedColes ( talk) 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Can you please advise me about giving references to a book that has a number of editions. The reason that I gave details of the 1984 (UK) Penguin edition of Welchman's The Hut Six Story, was that that is the edition that I have and from which I can therfore accurately quote page numbers. You have understandably changed the reference to the first (US) edition, but are the page numberings in the in-line citations still accurate? TedColes ( talk) 19:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
A cursory look at your recent edits shows some errors. For example, it was Rejewski alone who reconstructed the machine, using group theory. Zyralski and Różycki had no involvement with Enigma before Rejewski had completed the reconstruction.
Your edits have deleted material that I spent some hours placing into the article, as well as layout alterations that had improved its clarity.
Would you consider a restoration of the version as of December 14, 17:58, and then your introducing your additional information? Nihil novi ( talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I am keen to get things right and certainly don't want an editing war. But you have now deleted quite a lot of my material that was several weeks in preparation. I intend to restore most, if not all, of it, but not as clumsily as before. I will be happy to consider reasoned arguments about omitting the material that I added and the best layout. I am particularly concerned about the loss of my explanation of the 'cycles', which is a better word than 'chains' as it fits in with group theory terminology and has an obvious match with the cyclometer. As regards the page numbers in the different editions of Welchman's The Hut Six Story, if you don't have my edition and I don't have yours, perhaps both editions should be in the list of references, and the in-line citations that include page numbers should specify the edition to which they refer by giving the year of publication. However, I don't see any in-line citations that refer to the 1982 edition. What do you suggest? TedColes ( talk) 12:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any clear information about when the Poles build the Cyclometer? My sources are somewhat ambiguous about it. The scenario that seems most likely to me is that it was not built for the initial cataloguing of the cycles in 1933/34, but following the change to Enigma's reflector on 1 November 1937. However, an anonymous editor of the Cyclometer article gives 1936 as the date. Prior to that, the article gave 'about 1934' as the date, which would align with the production of the initial catalogue of the cycles. TedColes ( talk) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC) I think that I have answered my own question. http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/aboutus/history_center/wesolkowski.pdf seems to be an authorative source and gives 1934 as the date for Rejewski's cyclometer. TedColes ( talk) 18:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Three points.
1. Does ‘samiczki’ translate as ‘female’ or ‘socket’? If so, the wording can be simplified and the parentheses eliminated.
2. The common meaning of ‘commutator’ is of something that reverses the direction of an electric current, such as that in an electric motor. From the dictionaries that I have consulted, the use of this word to describe the redirection of a current without it being reversed is rare. I would therefore contend that using ‘commutator’ to describe Enigma’s plugboard is likely to confuse rather than to clarify things for most people.
3. The German elimination of the repetition in the Enigma message keys in May 1940 would have been a major upset to decryption approaches based on ‘females’. By what technique were the Poles able to resume decrypting Enigma messages after the astonishingly short interval of only a three weeks? It is also worth noting that Ronald Lewin in ‘Ultra goes to war’ (1978) on p 36 calls Bertrand’s book ‘Enigma’ (1973) ‘an overblown account of his career’ i.e. it may not be a very trustworthy source. TedColes ( talk) 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Am I right in inferring that you are an expert on the Polish language? If so, and if you haven’t already seen them, you might be interested in a couple of snippets from Jack Copeland’s book The Essential Turing. On p.236 he says, (citing Kozaczuk, Enigma 63):
The equivalent Polish term 'samiczki', meaning 'females', was quite likely the result of a play on words, 'samiczki' being used as short for a Polish phrase meaning 'the same places.
On p.240 in footnote 53 he says:
The indicators and indicator settings used in this example are adapted from p.266 of Kasparek's translation of Rejewski's 'Jak Matematycy polscy rozszyfrowali Enigme' in Kozaczuk, Enigma, The present description of the bomby has been reconstructed from Rejewski's rather compressed account appearing on that page. Unfortunately, Stepenske's translation of these same paragraphs in the Annals of the History of Computing is marred by an error that seriously affects the sense. The phrase that Steperiske translates 'by striking key W three times in a row, the same lamp would light' (p. 226) should be translated 'if key W is struck the same lamp will light again after three more strokes'. (Please excuse any mis-transcription)
Can you verify these remarks? Incidentally, I find that the vast majority of sources that I have consulted use ‘bomba’ and ‘bomby’ for the Polish machine, rather than ‘bomb’ and ‘bombs’. I still favour reverting to this more common and less ambiguous terminology. Do you feel very strongly about this issue? TedColes ( talk) 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Of 1920. I thought you may be interested in this new article I've just created. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | An AFD discussion in which you participated has been declared void and is now relisted.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radwan_Dąbrowski-Żądło_Family_(2nd_nomination_-_voided). Has been closed. |
This notification is not an attempt at canvassing, as it is being sent with no recommendation, and to all parties who significantly contributed to the original discussion, as shown inside this collapsed section. |
---|
Notified
Not notified
|
Ecoleetage (
talk) wishes you peace!
I've put it up for FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
I am intrigued by the style of English that you use. I am tempted to think that you have worked as a sub-editor. Most of your changes seem to me to be improvements, albeit often marginal ones, which could carry a danger of irritating the editor whose prose you have changed. One or two of your edits to Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, I find excessively American to my British ears. You will have seen that your change of 'likely' from an adverb to a verb was a step too far for me. Your latest edit of this article to reverse the edit by Soler97 also seems to me to be in the wrong direction. Is 'Rejewski in about 1934...' worse than 'Rejewski about 1934...'? To me the former is distinctly better. I know that Noah Webster intentionally moved American English away from British English, and many of his changes were improvements that deserve to be in the international language that English has become.
I am genuinely curious to know whether 'the Germans would be likely to stop' and 'Rejewski in about 1934...' really are unpleasant to an American ear.
Kind regards,
-- TedColes ( talk) 08:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove my edits for no reason and with no explanation, especially when they are valid, proper contributions to the article... Thank you... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 12:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Aleksander Świętochowski at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ∗
\ / (
⁂)
23:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nihil
I just wanted to say thanks for all the work you have done on the Enigma article. I realy appreciate how much work you have put in. So thanks a lot, at least one person appreciates it. :)
SimonTrew ( talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop adding this to pages:
I don't see your addition as serving the readers of the pages you targeted, I see it as serving only the Wpływologia page, giving it further credibility and addition links. For the benefit of the readers, I am reverting your spamming of this link across a number of pages. Binksternet ( talk) 04:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi,
I was wondering why Chopin must be referred to as one of music's greatest tone poets in the introductory paragraph of the page? If you take a look at Chopin's talk page, you will notice this topic has already been covered. The article had made it clear that Chopin is a composer of chiefly non-programic music, and his compositions rarely have any extra-musical connotations. In fact, just about all of the "nicknames" and stories that have been applied to his pieces were done so by other people after his death. Maybe occasionally we will find a piece that might have a story behind it, but this is most definitely not enough to go on to call him one of the "greatest tone poets", which is in itself very POV-based and surely not the type of statements that should be found on WikiPedia. In fact, stating that he is "widely regarded as the greatest Polish composer" is already pushing the envelope, and then following that up with "one of the greatest tone poets" crosses the line, IMHO. To add to that, the source cited is an offline source not readily accessible, that weakens the case even further. I suggest we remove the tone poet claim, and even consider rewording the preceding "widely regarded as the greatest Polish composer" line as well, since that's clearly weasel language and non-neutral POV. TheFinalSay ( talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to Henryk Rzewuski. However, "Edit" is probably not the best choice for an edit summary, as it provides no more information than no edit summary does. Please keep this in mind when making future edits, and try to write edit summaries that provide a description of the edits you're making. Thank you! -- Ericdn ( talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 15:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You noticed it was missing from Television so you put it back. Sorry, I actually moved it from there a month or two ago, and put it in Films with the other miniseries. (I have left normal weekly TV shows in the Television section.)
Once I moved it, I watched a few of the episodes again (I last saw the series when it first aired back in 1976), and I expanded it to this:
I, Claudius — 1976 BBC miniseries by Herbert Wise on political violence in ancient Rome, involving the murders of members of the Imperial family – Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius, Lucius, the Emperor Augustus (poisoned by his wife Livia), Postumus, Germanicus, "Castor", "Helen", Drusus and Nero, Livilla, the Emperor Tiberius, Gemellus, Drusilla and fœtus, the Emperor Caligula (John Hurt), Caesonia and Julia Drusilla, Messalina, the Emperor Claudius (Derek Jacobi), Britannicus, Agrippinilla – and others
(Some of that is not very historical. Drusilla, for example.)
I also put in the 1937 and 2010 versions of the story, and added an entry to Novels.
Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto)
(I'm sorry. I sort of took over your page. I obviously like it a lot. But many years ago, I was a Top Contributor at the IMDb, so this is an easy area for me. Historical documentary was my main field at the IMDb.)
Congratulations. Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has reviewed your contributions and decided you are an active member. Thank you for your encyclopedic contributions! PS. Please also consider editing your entry in our participants list to state your areas of expertise/interest. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, (Any comment on my note from March 17?)
Do you happen to know where global changes and retrofits are discussed at Wikipedia, before they get implemented?
I've just noticed that someone has done a retrofit where all Nazi films are now German films, all Fascist films are now Italian films. Like there is no difference at all there.
Thanks, Varlaam ( talk) 19:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to renominate this for GAC, but it could use a copyedit by somebody with English proficiency for prose issues. Would you mind?
Completed copyedit, as best I could. Nihil novi ( talk) 07:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your edits to Ed Ricketts. I'm not sure why you are taking paragraphs and splitting them up, but I don't think that is helpful. It almost appears that you are reading the article from a screen with a larger resolution. Remember, when changing layout, do not edit based on a unique screen resolution. Viriditas ( talk) 01:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I answered your question on my talk page, which I missed the first time around. I'll try and add the edition and reference in the next two hours. Viriditas ( talk) 08:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a problem with your latest round of edits. Much of the material you are copying wholesale from sources like American Scientist and replacing the old material which was paraphrased and rewritten to avoid plagiarism. Please correct this or I will be forced to revert all of your new edits. Again, you need to rewrite the material in your own words. Please do not copy it directly from the sources as you are doing. Viriditas ( talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the copyedit of Joseph Campbell! It becomes impossible, after a while, to see where style and content have gotten sloppy. Your sharp eye was much appreciated. David Kudler ( talk) 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 08:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In the past you've copyedited this article once. It has however failed the recent FAC nomination due to objections that this article has not been sufficiently copyedited before and that there are some "prose issues". I'd like to ask you to consider copyediting it again (I am not an native speaker of English so I cannot spot those "prose issues" myself). Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Nihil novi, according to your edit ( (Copernicus' use of the German language does not of itself make him a German astronomer, any more than it would make a German-speaking Swiss astronomer a German.)), you now have to remove all Polish categories from Polish-speaking 19th century figures, like Marie Curie, as they were subjects to the Russian, Austrian, Prussian/German monarchs, or emigrants to other countries. As there was no Poland for 123 years, there were no Polish citizens in that time,and thus no Polish astronomers or similar. The other choice would be to leave the Polish categories, and re-add German categories to German-speaking Prussians of the "Polish partition" (1466-1776), like Copernicus, Hevelius, Fahrenheit etc.. Please be consistent, pick one standard: classification according to ethnicity/culture/language, or by state/citizenship. The "everybody was Polish, always and everywhere" war cry should be left to Serafin and his sock army. -- Matthead Discuß 05:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it's me.
Thanks for reverting Ilovemichaelcrichton and his Jurassic Park. Ha, ha.
Obviously, just a kid.
I think you mean "historical" here, not "historic", perhaps? Those are distinct.
But the way I have been writing the data, if I say "1922 assassination", then that is an historical event. It's real. It doesn't require a word like historic(al). Also, when it is the date of a real event, not an imaginary event, I write 1922. For example, in Woody Allen's Love and Death, it's 1812. But in Woody Allen's Sleeper it's 2173 because that is not a real event.
So I think I want to modify some of your recent changes.
Now, I love Woody Allen. I read ALL of his books 30 years ago. But I NEVER include character names. Like Boris. Because the names of fictional characters are not important.
In my thinking, if I name a person, Napoleon, then he's real, and I can say Napoleon. If he's fictional, only his job is important (hitman), not his name. So I never include that. It's unnecessary. It's too much information.
What do you think?
Varlaam ( talk) 06:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
So, just so we are clear, I would write JFK was killed in 1963, because it is a real person and a real event, but if it's a supermodel in a fictional story who gets killed, then I would write 1963. That is one of the ways I am using now to distinguish history (and fictionalized history) from pure fiction.
Thank you for copyediting this article. I've renominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II/archive3. Feel free to comment, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi! In my opinion, there is not a good idea to put names of people who have no articles in Wikipedia, both from the aestethic (red links) and highest respectability (blue links) point of view (i.e. List of Germans, or List of chess players). On the other hand, there is a possibility to appear not really important people or even fictional persons. -- Mibelz ( talk) 08:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that you have undone one of my recent edits to Poetry by replacing my link to Prose poetry with the text 'prosaic "poetry"'. I'm curious about two points: first, did you intend "prosaic" to mean "commonplace or dull; matter-of-fact or unimaginative" or to mean "having the character or form of prose rather than poetry"? Second, is your use of "poetry" sneer quotes, or what? I'm not clear about your intention; if I'm not clear about it, other readers also may not be, and WP writing should avoid opacity.
I assumed in my edit that the original writer had intended an opposition of "poetic prose" (text characterised as prose, but with features of poetry) to "prose poetry" (text characterised as poetry, but with features of prose). I made the edit because I saw no implication or need of any implication of the common meaning of "prosaic" in the surrounding text (and it would have been a misleading technical use of "prosaic" in the subsidiary meaning); nor was there any evidence of a sarcastic or ironic tone that just possibly might have merited sneer-quoting - though I think sneer-quotes should rarely be used in encyclopaedic writing.
So: is there something that you saw there that I missed in my edit, or were you seeing something that the sense of the text didn't actually imply? I'm open to being convinced. Kay Dekker ( talk) 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments there; you may want to consider voting as well. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
By any chance, would you happen to live there? I am looking for a place to stay in SF for a few days in August :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Future protestant Jan Łaski was ordinated Catholic priest and Catholic canon untill he converted to protestantism. see pl article. Lucas Watzenrode was bad linked from Polish page. I have repaired it. Mathiasrex ( talk) 22:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you add dates of his birth/death, or at least estimates? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants 27 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You've been here long enough to know that misleading edit summaries like this are unacceptable. I'm not going to template you because you should know better. If you have a problem with my edits, discuss it at the article's talk page instead of reverting. If you do this again I'm going to report you for edit warring. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 03:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reported you here. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 03:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the meaning of this? Numerous editors have weighed in at the talk page supporting the changes I proposed, you never responded, and now you've undone it. You are ignoring both clear formatting guidelines ( WP:MOSIMAGE) and clear consensus at the talk page that most of those images do not belong. You don't own the page. Again, if you have a problem with the edit, don't revert, go explain your problem at the talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 12:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Do nominate DYK worthy articles for T:TDYKs :) And please archive your talk page, I am having trouble loading it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
Hello, Nihil novi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -
SpuriousQ (
talk)
23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
|
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Witam Nihil novi,
i think it is described on Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons - in short; download the image from de on your computer. Next go to commons and upload it there; done ;o) .... of course dont forget to name the uploader and the source (a link; not just de-wiki ;o) ) - the best is; just copy every information from de to commons; so nothing can get lost ... after you did this is would be nice if you would inform me. Than i could delete the image on de and use the commons-version as well. .... Ansers please on my german talk page ... Sicherlich Post 18:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) PS: maybe you could give on de:Benutzer:Nihil novi a link to your english page. Would be more compfortable to find you here ;)
... has moved. Regards, 149.229.98.21 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine fine fine, have it your way, Copernicus is Polish, Alexander is Greek and Leonardo is Italian, right - way to educate the masses. A lead is supposed to introduce the subject right? In the book I'm looking at, what I added is in the first sentence. It isn't an "unnecessary intrusion" but then I'm now so mad with this pile of inaccuracy, I'll take my input elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.147.29 ( talk) 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
Sorry for my imperfect revert there. It's fixed now. -- Guinnog 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why you remove from Joseph Conrad´s article the fact that he witnessed as a small boy the decline and dramatic death of his mother and later the death of his father. Andreanrc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andreanrc ( talk • contribs) 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
You made far reaching edits to article Sukiennice. However, the term "Drapers' Hall" means not what you intended. It is mostly the Herbert James Draper Hall in London or a male dorm at Oklahoma University. [1] Meanwhile, the previous well established term used to describe Sukiennice can be traced back to other similar structures written about in Wikipedia, such as:
I don't want to get entangled in reverting your creative edits, so please bring the "cloth hall" back by yourself. Thanks. -- Poeticbent talk 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Why did you revert the article? J. D. Redding 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
My bad. Could have sworn I'd recently seen it written "Frantiszek"...but maybe I've just gone all Czech again. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. K. Lásztocska 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Some time ago I corrected the wrong form "Warsaw University" to "University of Warsaw", providing extensive explanations in the Talk page, why one is wrong and the other is right. You have undone my correction and the reasons you give for your change show that you have not read my explanations. I do not want to engage into any kind of editing wars, but please, read my explanations and would you please revert your change yourself? Yours Fon 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please consider the following statement, which comes from the official website of the University:
We kindly inform you that in accordance with the new Statute of Warsaw University of June 21, 2006, the English name of our institution has been changed as of October 1, 2006 to the University of Warsaw. Both names ( Warsaw University, University of Warsaw) are equally valid and may be used on information materials/symbols etc., until the end of academic year 2006/07 - that is, until September 30, 2007.
Other explanations are provided in my request for the moving of the article. Fon 21:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy edit. Much better now. Dr. Dan 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an
edit summary. Thank you. --
Doctormatt
19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
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) 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nihil novi, I just wanted to tell you that the same annoying (un-)discussion on the relevance of standards and on a readable and informative way of mentioning them is going on in the German article on translation... I'll try to find the time to write a new section on the standards for the German version asap and see whether this will work as a compromise. If it does, I'll let you know so you can put it here. All the best. -- Margit Brause 06:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I like your user name (regardless of whether it means "nothing new without the consensus of all" or "nothing new under the sun"). I've appreciated your edits to the Spiritualism article, but I would like to undo a few of those in the current round. I'm happy with the new headings, but not so happy with some of the images. Spiritualism was an historical movement, with millions of ordinary people, and I picked out a few images to show that. I was very fond of the Swedish painting, since it showed a group of ordinary middle-class people, and the painter Richard Berghe managed to convey the excitement they felt. The images of Swedenborg and Mesmer leave me cold, they are just static and formal portraits, with little hint of the person inside. I like the Fox Sisters, Podmore, Price, and Houdini images, I'm willing to accept the Conan Doyle image, but I would drop the Mary Todd Lincoln and Frederick Douglass portraits. All kinds of people inveighed for or against Spiritualism, and the article should avoid simply cataloging the celebrities. If you would like to leave the Lincoln story in the text, you should add a source, since before your edit everything in the text was sourced. Douglass doesn't belong here--if you wish to add a celebrity critic, Henry James would be the obvious choice.
I also have an issue with the captions. I wrote captions to encourage the reader to look more closely at the images, and also to give some hint of why the image was important. I would like to retain the original captions on the Chicago women image and on the Swedish mesmerist image. I also liked the "practical jokes" line in the first image.
In my opinion, the article's most pressing need is to eliminate the red links. We need to make stubs for the Seybert Commission, Amy and Isaac Post, and Achsa W. Sprague.-- Anthon.Eff 15:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
See WP:PUNC#Brackets. Stylistically, punctuation should be used outside parentheticals when not enclosing a quotation or for less than a sentence. It's also house style on Wikipedia. — Viriditas | Talk 22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the spelling error on the Copernicus talk page. Guldenat 03:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've put in for a 3RR intervention, but it's so slow! Just thought I'd let you know. Maybe we should take this to elsewhere on WP:ANI. This is ridiculous. Dreadstar † 08:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi, thanks for the update on my German talk page. The German article had to be put under protection as well, which seems to have stopped the trouble. I'm sorry I haven't been able to do anything constructive for the English article these last few weeks. -- Margit Brause 07:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi, I am going to back off of Translation for now so that I am not in danger of 3RR myself, but Eurominuteman is probably not going to back off. From my point of view, his current edits are very similar to his previous ones. In what I think must be his form of compromise, he is changing the title of sections he disagrees with to "Quick and Dirty methods", and adding in a section entitled "Enhanced Methods". If you can help, that'd be cool or I'll wait until tomorrow and remove this blatant POV (also persistant linkspam). Thanks Man It's So Loud In Here 17:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
How about making some substantial contributions to the discussion? -- Itskoolman 10:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor with periodically mutating IP addresses, aka Eurominuteman, aka Itskoolman, was blocked from editing Wikipedia on September 20, 2007, at last bringing peace to " Translation." Reportedly he had earlier created the same chaos at the same article on the German Wikipedia, with the same ultimate result. It is remarkable how much turmoil and enervation can be wrought by one person. Nihil novi 07:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion over at
Talk:Translation#Images is somewhat circular; can I entice you to join the conversation?
Naturezak (
talk)
19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you have access to that publication - that's great; the more you can reference and expand this article, the better :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
¿Why does Copernicus was not a Polish and Dürer and Beethoven were Germans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationalism Patrol ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- PFHLai 14:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
And what that means: Minoritenkirche, Vienna, Französischer Dom, Stadtschloss, Berlin, Konzerthausorchester Berlin, Zoologischer Garten Berlin, Berliner Dom, Rotes Rathaus, Votivkirche, Augustinerkirche, Jesuitenkirche, Vienna, Ruprechtskirche, Kapuzinerkirche, Dresdner Frauenkirche, Grünes Gewölbe, Palais Strousberg, Schloß Pötzleinsdorf, Palais Königswarter, Berlin Hauptbahnhof. Could you please translate me this? My English is terrible, as you probably noticed when you corrected some of my articles. I'll be very grateful. Polaco77 23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Nontheism and List of nontheists have been nominated for deletion. As an editor of one or both of these articles, I thought you should know. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists. Thanks. Nick Graves 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi! How are you? Why did you voted for keep? Was that because of your friendship with Nick Graves? Please reconsider your decision. Thank you. RS1900 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, you've got me right. Not only self-counscious but also with separate foreign policy, treasury, army and most other official institutions. If the federal formulation seems too confusing, we might discuss it. Con-federal maybe?-- Lokyz 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, due to chronic vandalism, " Perfection" was semi-protected for 2 months, with possibility of 4-month extension if warranted; and " Marie Curie," without expiration date. What a relief! Nihil novi 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Another link from Prometheism. Perhaps you could proofread / expand a little? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add this link into every article which is mentioned in Prometheism. If we start adding each term ino each article mentioned in the article about the term, we will have a complete mess. The "see also" section is for things essentially expanding the current subject or for siimilar topics. We don't write fork in "see also" for beefsteak, do we? `' Míkka 06:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski, since you copyedited the article and work on related subjects. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page
Leon Schiller worked, and it has been
reverted or removed. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to
our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
ZacBowling
talk
21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Why did you add {{ TOCleft}} in the article ' Bolesław Prus? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 10:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
To close the blank area that now glares at the reader from beneath the lead? What do you mean by that? Look, almost all biographies do not have the table of contents at the top. That's why I removed {{ TOCleft}}. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit (revert) at the Copernicus article. May I ask your opinion regarding the continual reverting of Vilnius to "Vilna (modern Vilnius)", by several (I believe biased) editors? Their rationale is that Vilna has been the earlier English language geographical toponym, and therefore must be used on WP. Your honest opinion on the matter and the difference between applying the same logic with Cracow (modern Kraków) would be greatly appreciated. Dr. Dan ( talk) 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
For copyediting Józef Piłsudski article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Nihil novi:
Why did you revert, without explanation, these 2 edits of mine: [2] and [3]? You reverted my edits in this edit of yours: [4]. Finell (Talk) 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC) (I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
I noticed this edit : I hope you didn't take my comment too seriously? I was grateful for your (and Folantin's) support, but it didn't help in the end, given Honorkell's refusal to be convinced by my logic. I fully support your move to get random cultural references removed. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 07:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could comment at Talk:Nobilitation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
On December 7, I requested a further 4 months' semi-protection for " Perfection," which since its de-protection on November 30 had undergone 18 changes (vandalizations and their reversals) with no net change in text. Semi-protection was granted by User:Piotrus. "Expires 00:00, December 15, 2008." Nihil novi 05:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi! How are you? Are you a Pole? Many of your edits are related to Poland. You have made lots of edits to Frédéric Chopin, Bolesław Prus, List of Poles, Józef Piłsudski, Nicolaus Copernicus, Marie Curie, History of philosophy in Poland, etc. I think you are an interesting person. Why don't you mention few things about you in your user page? I wish you all the best. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Nihil novi. I hope you are well. I would like to request a clarification regarding this, as you did not produce it during your automated revert. I intuit that you may think that following words are my interpretation It was highly significant that Piłsudski could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation, but a Lithuanian of Polish culture. It is not, these are similar words taken from Norman Davies history book Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland. Exact quote would be as follows: It was highly significant that Piłsudski could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation - which he once derided as "a nation of morons" - but a Lithuanian of Polish culture (Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland p.139). Please take a look that in my version I did not included a nation of morons part (despite a fact that I think it is very useful to describe Pilsudski’s beliefs). By your revert and simplification of presented material (which is Piłsudski sometimes spoke of being a Lithuanian of Polish culture) we lost valuable information, mainly parts It was highly significant and could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation, in other words your edited text hardly represents main aspects of original quote and probably could be seen as original research. What is also important that in your interpretation of provided original quote is weasel-worded , which is not good for Future Article candidate. For these reasons I restored my original formulation of words. M.K. ( talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's going to be a bit of work to get a new translation article in order, and port that material from Formal and Dynamic Equivalence to other relevant pages. Any thoughts before I begin to plot the course? Naturezak ( talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi can you please provide a more meaningful edit summary other than "Edit." as you did on this edit. That you did edit the article is self-evident - even putting no edit summary in reports that you edited the article - but if you can put something in which identifies what or how you edited the article that would be great.
Ga rr ie 23:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Why did you reverted my edits? Please see the biographies of most people. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, articles should not be moved, as you did to
Polish Biographical Dictionary, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some
guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --
Francis Schonken (
talk)
12:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! I read the biography of Nicolaus Copernicus and there are some useful information about him. Thanks for your contributions to the biography of Copernicus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't yet researched M-morze properly; it is still on my 'to do' list; hence I can speak with much confidence about the naming variants :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did you put the first image on the Chopin article on the LEFT side of the screen??? All of the Wikipedia pages in Polish and English (and French) have the FIRST image on the RIGHT side of the screen? Charvex ( talk) 09:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This useful template will tell other users what languages you can speak. You can also add an infobox from WP:PWNB that will tell them you are a member of our little project :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to edit and expand this article one day, considering it served as an inspiration to your Wikipedia nickname :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Happy New Year! Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 08:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Spiritualism might be ready for nomination to GA status. Since your work on the headings and adding new images, very little has been added, so it seems that it has hit a period of equilibrium. What do you think--should I nominate it? -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class | |
I, Tymek ( talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC), am awarding you this Barnstar, as a gesture of appreciation. Your good work on Poland-related articles is highly regarded. Keep it up! |
Thank you for copyediting and expanding the article. Could you add citations for the new facts you've added? Particularly for the considerations about the museum in Belweder; I'd like to read more about it. Aren't there plans for a museum in his mansion in Sulejówek? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I am a little confused about the nationality of Nicolaus Copernicus. I think the following statement should be verified:
"Indeed, he might have considered himself to be both at the same time."
In many books Copernicus is regarded as Polish. However, at that time, there was no Polish State. Can you explain me why Copernicus is commonly regarded as Polish? I am not from Poland. However, I am interested in Poland and Polish history. You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the
preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up
recent changes and the
page history. Thank you. Regards,
High on a tree (
talk)
08:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. MOS#Images clearly says that Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary and list cases where the image width should be included. If there is something wrong, try to reconfigure thumbnail size in your user preferences. Visor ( talk) 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't have done it without help from you and other good editors! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Spiritualism small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Anthon.Eff ( talk) 18:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Any reason why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/4.79.230.76 might have removed the sizing on the images and TOC tab?
I do not know ... is it a Wiki thing? -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Congratulations! Today I noticed that Józef Piłsudski has achieved FA status. You made significant contributions to the article. Well done. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comment about "limited attention span" was rude and sophomoric. For my part, I actually have read a lot about Piłsudski and find him a fascinating personality. But in the grand scheme of things, Piłsudski is not a major historical figure, globally speaking.
BTW, I also have lived in Poland, however briefly, and Lithuania.
Sca ( talk) 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Always a pleasure. In the future don't hesitate to nominate yourself, it's common practice - and I have so many things to do... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can find and cite an old version of the page in the Internet Archive? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated. Is the horse notable or not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Lucy has been blocked indefinitely ( User_talk:Lucyintheskywithdada#Blocked). Don't forget to respond to the survey at Talk:Spiritualism#Requested_move. Thanks! -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I have added Infobox Writer to the biography of Prus. You can add some information. And, I think we can promote the article to GA status. Can you please find some more information about Prus? You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I asked you to inform Piotrus about this because he is from Poland. I made the template by studying other similar templates. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil. I didn't know that in Poland, the movement was called simply "Positivism," not "Polish Positivism". However, the term Positivism is generally associated with Sociology. It will be confusing to non-Polish person like me. And, I didn't know that in Polish, women's names take feminine endings. Few things in the biography will be confusing to non-Polish people. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 07:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Nihil. I think we should discuss about Prus on the talk page of Bolesław Prus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. You citied the references and notes in an incorrect manner! You should have used the citation template. See: Template:Citation. I also believe that the biography of Prus can achieve FA status. We have to correct the references and notes. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled about the "retrieved [date]" information-items for The Polish Review sources, in the new citation templates. Are these articles actually available on-line? Or are these simply errors? Nihil novi ( talk) 05:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
What is Wspomnienia o Bolesławie Prusie? Book, journal, or article? And, What do you mean by "note 7"? What was the volume? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil. You added the following:
Prus was not alone in advocating the development of science and technology. It was part of the spirit of the times. The great Polish mathematician Kazimierz Kuratowski writes that in the period when Poland was under complete foreign rule (1795–1918) "It was a common belief that the cultivation of science and the growth of its potential would somehow guarantee the maintenance of the [Polish] nation." (A Half Century of Polish Mathematics: Remembrances and Reflections, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1980, p. 2.)
Did you modify the text? We have to modify the text to avoid copy-right violation. What is the name of the author? Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil. According to the article "Eventually released on account of his youth, in 1866 he completed secondary school and enrolled in science at the University of Warsaw." However, according to this website, Prus graduated in 1868. Which one is correct? If the information provided by the website is false, I will remove it from the section External Links. Did Prus studied Physics and Mathematics at Warsaw? And, do you have books that are citied on the article? The article is nominated for the GA status. Many users are watching the biography. We have to get all correct information. And, are Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy and Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej publishing companies? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 08:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I think you should see the article. The article is very good and it is probably the best biography of Prus on the Internet. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
I, MusicalConnoisseur, award you this barnstar for your tireless work on the Frédéric Chopin article. It is an article that deserves such serious attention, and I thank you for it! ~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
P.S.: You might want to add a few of these awards onto your userpage...it might spruce it up a bit. :) -- ~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Thank you for the award. And, I think you are a great editor. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 06:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to be an ass about this ... but that was pure vandalism. -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I noticed that you created the article Apollo Korzeniowski. Great job. The biography is very good. I have nominated it for DYK. I think the name of the book is Apollo Korzeniowski. Correct? Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I have created a new list called List of Polish novelists. I know that a list called List of Poles already exists. However, the list is simply too long and thus, I felt that it would be better to create a seperate list. The list provides many information that a category cannot provide (such as the name of novel written by a novelist). I would like you to see the list. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Thank you for your note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 02:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar, I will cut it out and wear it when I go somewhere. Thanks again Tymek ( talk) 17:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you didn't like my recent edit concerning Milosz being "Lithuanian born", and I prefer, if possible, to iron these things out on the talk pages before getting into an edit war. What knowledge do you have concerning the Polish demographics in Šeteniai (right in the heart of Lithuania) that might explain your edit summary? Also, would you agree that following your logic, it would open a "can of worms" as so many "Polish persons of notability" were not born in Poland, but in the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian Empires? Should we change the Joseph Conrad article and make him a Ukrainian born English writer, and the Pilsudski article to his being Russian born? And Marie Curie and all the rest? What's your opinion? I prefer not to cherry pick out certain personalities, but to keep a consistency in the articles one way or the other. I believe that even in the Russian Empire the geographical area known as Lithuania, was called that. Just the same, looking at the whole picture, how do you perceive this in an objective manner? Dr. Dan ( talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am curious to what exactly this unsourced anecdote brings to the article? Ostap 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You can edit this article, replacing the link by your text. Xx236 ( talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
When you select Tadeusz Bobrowski you see a link on the top of the Conrad article to Tadeusz Bobrowski one. Xx236 ( talk) 08:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class | |
I award Nihil novi "The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class" for his outstanding contributions to Poland-related articles. Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to Nihil novi by Masterpiece2000 ( talk) on 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hello Nihil novi. You have received "The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class" award twice. This shows that your contributions are quite outstanding. I also think that you should mention few things about you or your contributions on your user page. You have made significant contributions for Wikipedia. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Great news! You deserve most credit for this. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In reverting the Page Move I made for Triple Cross Square by declaring Three Crosses Square to be "clumsy English", you neglect to take into account:
Kindly relate to the above remarks ASAP so we can proceed with appropriate editing. -- Thank you, Deborahjay ( talk) 09:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. The article Bolesław Prus should be promoted to the FA status. I have created a new list called List of works by Bolesław Prus. Please help me. Please add information about the work of Prus on the list. The list is modeled after List of Max Weber works. You can add all the information that we cannot add in the biography of Prus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, we need to include all the fiction he ever wrote. And, if they don't have English title, just Polish name will do. According to you, Prus must have written some 2,000 of these "Weekly Chronicles." Some notable "Weekly Chronicles" can be included. You can also include some obscure stuff. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I created a new section 'Notable works by Bolesław Prus' and redirected the list 'List of works by Bolesław Prus' to 'Notable works by Bolesław Prus'. You can add information in that section. The biography is ready for the FA status. What's your views? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 10:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ziemia Obiecana -> redirect to The Promised Land (about a 1974 movie). I've just created a stub on The Promised Land (novel) - but I think the novel should be under the generic title, not the movie. What do you think? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. Thank you for your contributions to the article Boleslaw Prus. Now, the article is even better. I think the article should be nominated for the FA status after one month. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the {{
prod}}
template to the article
Illegitimacy in fiction, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and
Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at
its talk page. If you remove the {{
prod}}
template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
BJBot (
talk)
01:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 09:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could read through and see if there is anything to improve in Armia Krajowa (soon to be a FA candidate) and Polish culture during World War II (a current GA candidate). Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Stories grow. Please list a PRIMARY source for the Palladino levitation story. The date may have some importance. Primary source :After Death-What by Cesare Lombroso, the father of Phrenology, Experiments with Palladino, 1908 p 49-50, tells us the levitation took place in the dark. The only proofs seem to be that Palladino says she will rise in her chair and land on the table, her hands were held and the feeling of hands on the top of the investigators' heads. Nothing is seen. Look at Uri Geller and my boy Ingo Swann. They did their tricks in the light before modern day scientists and the CIA. The belief in magick and superstition is alive and well. It always will be too! That is why the critical investigations of magicians who specialize in deception and fraud is important. Just as it was when people were being executed for being witches. Drop by and say hello. Kazuba ( talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Wizardman 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Daniel Case ( talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I hope you are doing well. Nihil, the article Boleslaw Prus is still not ready for the FA status. The lead of the article should be expanded and there are other flaws. We have to correct those flaws.
And, nice to know that you have contributed to so many DYKs. You have also contributed to one FA article, one GA and received three awards. I think you should mention that on your user page. It will help other users to know your great contributions for Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate you reading through the Łódź insurrection (1905). See comments on talk. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I hope you are doing well. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Your contributions and comments will be helpful. And, after this FA, I will focus on Bolesław Prus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of years ago I was at a party and a Polish girl I was talking to was adamant that Poland wasn't in "Eastern Europe". No, no, no ... it was in "Western Europe" she insisted (she didn't say "Central Europe"). She told me Poland was Catholic and had a great monarchy a few centuries ago as if this somehow proved it was in Western Europe. Anyways, I asked "What then is in Eastern Europe ... just Russia?" She said "No, Russia is in Asia", leaving me wondering exactly where Eastern Europe was. I mean, is eastern Europe supposed to be confined inside a line thinner than a pencil a little west of Brest-Litovsk? Anyways, seriously, it's just an arbitrary border ... used commonly in English to refer to those countries that were Communist. Western Europeans are extraordinarily self-centered and insular. The center of Europe for them lies in Belgium and the Franco-German border. It's nothing you should get worked up about. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 00:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)elusive
The wise way to address the controversial claims of our Polish partners to Stefan Banach is to acknowledge his European Ukrainian origins and background. Europe is our common home and Poles should have their say too. Let's stop arguing. As a citizen of Ukrainian Lviv, Banach is both Ukrainian and European. Let's call him a European mathematician. I hope Poles would agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 ( talk) 09:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nihil Novi! Congrats on the Chopin article so far, but I think this sentence: "Chopin was born in the village of Żelazowa Wola, in the Duchy of Warsaw, to a Polish mother and French- expatriate father, and came to be regarded as a child-prodigy pianist." in fact does need a "he" between "and" and "came." See this question raised at the reference desk. -- La Pianísta! 21:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I have created Category:WikiProject Poland participants. You can add the category on your user page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Your views here would be much appreciated. Thanks. Rohirok ( talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising and censoring Talk:Stefan_Banach and Stefan_Banach.
This discussion page contains discussions of Stefan Banach, including his important contributions to Ukrainian mathematics and his work in Lviv, Ukraine.
You initiated a new discussion topic at Talk:Stefan_Banach by suggesting to delete the section from an article on Stefan_Banach describing his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics. Immediately after initiating this discussion, you moved the entire body of the earlier discussions into the archive. You repeated this censorship attempt several times, after the discussion was restored.
The section Contributions to Ukrainian mathematics contains important facts on Banach's contributions to Ukrainian science and Ukrainian mathematics in particular. There are substantial plans to continue the work on expanding this particular section, as well as other sections of the Stefan_Banach article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 ( talk) 05:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
During your most recent censorship attempt, along with archiving the previous discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach, you deleted the section from this discussion that documented and condemned your censorship.
Please cease your censorship attempts and desist from them in the future. Respect the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 ( talk) 05:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in contributing to this new article I created. I plan to expand it soon; for now I concentrated on collecting sources for expansion (hence the long list of elinks and books and such).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought you may want to add your name to Wikipedia:PWNB#Participants_list.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you please write a plot summary for this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for creating the article about Tadeusz Puszczyński. I was going to do it, but I have been busy recently. Anyway, I will try to expand it. BTW I have noticed your work on the Wawelberg Group, good job! I see you are interested in this unknown part of Polish military history. Tymek ( talk) 01:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil! Your new article Tadeusz Puszczyński is very good! Great job! Can you add some more references in the article? It might qualify for DYK. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You will need to stop archiving the on-going discussion of Stefan Banach.
This discussion page is not large enough to justify archiving.
You will not be allowed to censor the discussion by moving it into the archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 ( talk) 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I am mainly interested in history of Poland from 1939 to present. I have studied how Polish people lived under communism. I know many things about Nicolas Copernicus. I have also studied about Frederic Chopin. He is quite popular.
I have to say few things about Chopin. In fact, I knew about Chopin before I knew about Boleslaw Prus.
I haven't edited the article Frederic Chopin because others like you are doing a fine job. I was doing some research on Chopin and I have found something interesting about him. See: [7]. I think we should mention about it in the article.
I was busy with other areas of Wikipedia. Hopefully I can make some contributions to the biography of Chopin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought you may want to comment on his request.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi. I withdrew my RfA. Thank you for supporting my RfA. Most editors who opposed my RfA expressed that I need to argue better in AfDs. I will take care about the concerns raised by them and apply again after sometime. Your support was really encouraging. If you have any suggestion for me, feel free to post a note on my talk page. Take care, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 12:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
...on your fine message to Masterpiece2000, regarding his RfA. I am glad to know like-minded individuals are online. :) Ecoleetage ( talk) 21:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Nihil novi, I think the links are not supposed to connect to categories. I think there is another way. I added Category:Bolesław Prus to "Bolesław Prus" at commons. See: [8]. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
On a short article I nominated for GA: Election sejm of 1632.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding your article to "See also" links to biographies. It really isn't necessary. It's like adding Brunette to a biography. Pointless. -- Merbabu ( talk) 08:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my contributions about Triple Cross Square. Can you also check my other article - AmRest? ;) Best regards Danziger100 ( talk) 14:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mononymous persons, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mononymous persons. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jdrewitt ( talk) 19:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Done! And thanks for creating the article Mononymous persons. It's a good article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 06:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
It's nice to see you drop back in again...although I haven't edited much of the article, I still watch it on my watchlist and am passionate about its subject. I'm just curious (now seeing you are online, as well), what are your goals with the article? Acheive FA someday, maybe? — LaPianista! «talk» 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
—
LaPianista!
«talk» has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Nihil. When I logged in, discussions were already closed. I would have voted "Keep". Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Nihil. I created the biography of Hubert Markl. He received the Order of Merit Star, Poland. Do you know anything about the Order of Merit Star, Poland? Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought the previous discussions (entertainer/porn actor) were closed in error by a biased admin. I feel this even more at this junction. How do you assess this process? (I'm querying Cosmic Latte similarly.) __ meco ( talk) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nihil novi.
Thank you for the translation of the article about Stjepan Musulin.
I saw that you've created the category about Polish-Croatian translators, so I'll give you some names that translated from Polish to Croatian:
Pero Mioč,
Zdravko Malić,
Zoran Bundyk,
Julije Benešić,
Iso Velikanović,
Milivoj Slaviček...
[9]. AFAIK, Polish poetess
Lucja Daniełewska was translating from Croatian to Polish.
Kamarad Walter (
talk)
08:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I've sent you an email. I also feel that you should archive your talk page discussions. It's very long. You can create a subpage User talk:Nihil novi/Archive 1 and copy and paste about 100 messages to that subpage. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nihil novi. I've created my account on Polish Wikipedia. I don't speak Polish, but I can still make contributions. I can add images, infobox, etc. In fact, I've already made some contributions. I've a question: How do you say "Hi" in Polish? And I hope to see you on Polish Wikipedia.
Regards,
Masterpiece2000 (
talk)
13:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was about three or four weeks ago now that you and I crossed paths on the article History of the World. I reread our discussion on the talk page, and then read some entries on your own talk page, and I want to apologize for being so terse and abrasive. I guess thought I sensed some kind of political bias in the wording, and it was also one of my first experiences using a talk page, so I didn't know how those things usually go. Anyhow, you appear to be a very cordial and friendly editor, and I promise to be more jolly in the future! MarcusMaximus ( talk) 08:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nihil Novi.
Why did you remove the cite tag from the Chopin article? I think we should add a source, rather than remove the tag outright. — La Pianista ( T• C• S• R) 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you know when was this photo first published, and who is the author? Copyright paranoia team asks for proof it was published before 1994... sigh. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you keep making some changes to the William Playfair article format, and I referted some changes. The thing is that I use one kind of format in all articles I wikified and I like to keep it that way. William Playfair is part of a series of articles about visualization who all have the same format and I like to keep it that way. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are you deleting reliably sourced material in which "Year 3333" is described as a precursor of the Zydokomuna concept? Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Łaski's Statute.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The DYK Medal | |
In recognition of your efforts for DYK, and hopefully more great articles to come. Thank you for your well-written contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
In the area? You're invited to | |
San Francisco Meetup # 8 | |
![]() | |
Date: November 8th, 2008 | |
Time: 2PM | |
Place: Metacafe, Palo Alto, California | |
prev: Meetup 7 - next: Meetup 9 |
Since I know you are interested in this subject, a third opinion could be useful regarding this. Do you think that this metaphor is relevant? I find it nice, but not encyclopedic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you think? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Adam Stanisław Grabowski at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —
Politizer
talk/
contribs
02:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Tadeusz Pełczyński at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Art LaPella (
talk)
20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have been working on this article for some time. I am pleased to see that you, a much more experienced editor than myself, has an interest in it. I have just altered a chunk from my sandbox that, I think improves the article. There will be more to follow. I may have accidentally undone some of your recent edits in the 'Polish breakthrough' and 'World war II' sections. I will try to repair any damage, but please accept my apologies if I am not entirely successful. TedColes ( talk) 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Can you please advise me about giving references to a book that has a number of editions. The reason that I gave details of the 1984 (UK) Penguin edition of Welchman's The Hut Six Story, was that that is the edition that I have and from which I can therfore accurately quote page numbers. You have understandably changed the reference to the first (US) edition, but are the page numberings in the in-line citations still accurate? TedColes ( talk) 19:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
A cursory look at your recent edits shows some errors. For example, it was Rejewski alone who reconstructed the machine, using group theory. Zyralski and Różycki had no involvement with Enigma before Rejewski had completed the reconstruction.
Your edits have deleted material that I spent some hours placing into the article, as well as layout alterations that had improved its clarity.
Would you consider a restoration of the version as of December 14, 17:58, and then your introducing your additional information? Nihil novi ( talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I am keen to get things right and certainly don't want an editing war. But you have now deleted quite a lot of my material that was several weeks in preparation. I intend to restore most, if not all, of it, but not as clumsily as before. I will be happy to consider reasoned arguments about omitting the material that I added and the best layout. I am particularly concerned about the loss of my explanation of the 'cycles', which is a better word than 'chains' as it fits in with group theory terminology and has an obvious match with the cyclometer. As regards the page numbers in the different editions of Welchman's The Hut Six Story, if you don't have my edition and I don't have yours, perhaps both editions should be in the list of references, and the in-line citations that include page numbers should specify the edition to which they refer by giving the year of publication. However, I don't see any in-line citations that refer to the 1982 edition. What do you suggest? TedColes ( talk) 12:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any clear information about when the Poles build the Cyclometer? My sources are somewhat ambiguous about it. The scenario that seems most likely to me is that it was not built for the initial cataloguing of the cycles in 1933/34, but following the change to Enigma's reflector on 1 November 1937. However, an anonymous editor of the Cyclometer article gives 1936 as the date. Prior to that, the article gave 'about 1934' as the date, which would align with the production of the initial catalogue of the cycles. TedColes ( talk) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC) I think that I have answered my own question. http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/aboutus/history_center/wesolkowski.pdf seems to be an authorative source and gives 1934 as the date for Rejewski's cyclometer. TedColes ( talk) 18:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Three points.
1. Does ‘samiczki’ translate as ‘female’ or ‘socket’? If so, the wording can be simplified and the parentheses eliminated.
2. The common meaning of ‘commutator’ is of something that reverses the direction of an electric current, such as that in an electric motor. From the dictionaries that I have consulted, the use of this word to describe the redirection of a current without it being reversed is rare. I would therefore contend that using ‘commutator’ to describe Enigma’s plugboard is likely to confuse rather than to clarify things for most people.
3. The German elimination of the repetition in the Enigma message keys in May 1940 would have been a major upset to decryption approaches based on ‘females’. By what technique were the Poles able to resume decrypting Enigma messages after the astonishingly short interval of only a three weeks? It is also worth noting that Ronald Lewin in ‘Ultra goes to war’ (1978) on p 36 calls Bertrand’s book ‘Enigma’ (1973) ‘an overblown account of his career’ i.e. it may not be a very trustworthy source. TedColes ( talk) 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Am I right in inferring that you are an expert on the Polish language? If so, and if you haven’t already seen them, you might be interested in a couple of snippets from Jack Copeland’s book The Essential Turing. On p.236 he says, (citing Kozaczuk, Enigma 63):
The equivalent Polish term 'samiczki', meaning 'females', was quite likely the result of a play on words, 'samiczki' being used as short for a Polish phrase meaning 'the same places.
On p.240 in footnote 53 he says:
The indicators and indicator settings used in this example are adapted from p.266 of Kasparek's translation of Rejewski's 'Jak Matematycy polscy rozszyfrowali Enigme' in Kozaczuk, Enigma, The present description of the bomby has been reconstructed from Rejewski's rather compressed account appearing on that page. Unfortunately, Stepenske's translation of these same paragraphs in the Annals of the History of Computing is marred by an error that seriously affects the sense. The phrase that Steperiske translates 'by striking key W three times in a row, the same lamp would light' (p. 226) should be translated 'if key W is struck the same lamp will light again after three more strokes'. (Please excuse any mis-transcription)
Can you verify these remarks? Incidentally, I find that the vast majority of sources that I have consulted use ‘bomba’ and ‘bomby’ for the Polish machine, rather than ‘bomb’ and ‘bombs’. I still favour reverting to this more common and less ambiguous terminology. Do you feel very strongly about this issue? TedColes ( talk) 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Of 1920. I thought you may be interested in this new article I've just created. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | An AFD discussion in which you participated has been declared void and is now relisted.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radwan_Dąbrowski-Żądło_Family_(2nd_nomination_-_voided). Has been closed. |
This notification is not an attempt at canvassing, as it is being sent with no recommendation, and to all parties who significantly contributed to the original discussion, as shown inside this collapsed section. |
---|
Notified
Not notified
|
Ecoleetage (
talk) wishes you peace!
I've put it up for FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
I am intrigued by the style of English that you use. I am tempted to think that you have worked as a sub-editor. Most of your changes seem to me to be improvements, albeit often marginal ones, which could carry a danger of irritating the editor whose prose you have changed. One or two of your edits to Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, I find excessively American to my British ears. You will have seen that your change of 'likely' from an adverb to a verb was a step too far for me. Your latest edit of this article to reverse the edit by Soler97 also seems to me to be in the wrong direction. Is 'Rejewski in about 1934...' worse than 'Rejewski about 1934...'? To me the former is distinctly better. I know that Noah Webster intentionally moved American English away from British English, and many of his changes were improvements that deserve to be in the international language that English has become.
I am genuinely curious to know whether 'the Germans would be likely to stop' and 'Rejewski in about 1934...' really are unpleasant to an American ear.
Kind regards,
-- TedColes ( talk) 08:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove my edits for no reason and with no explanation, especially when they are valid, proper contributions to the article... Thank you... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 12:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Aleksander Świętochowski at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ∗
\ / (
⁂)
23:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nihil
I just wanted to say thanks for all the work you have done on the Enigma article. I realy appreciate how much work you have put in. So thanks a lot, at least one person appreciates it. :)
SimonTrew ( talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop adding this to pages:
I don't see your addition as serving the readers of the pages you targeted, I see it as serving only the Wpływologia page, giving it further credibility and addition links. For the benefit of the readers, I am reverting your spamming of this link across a number of pages. Binksternet ( talk) 04:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nihil novi,
I was wondering why Chopin must be referred to as one of music's greatest tone poets in the introductory paragraph of the page? If you take a look at Chopin's talk page, you will notice this topic has already been covered. The article had made it clear that Chopin is a composer of chiefly non-programic music, and his compositions rarely have any extra-musical connotations. In fact, just about all of the "nicknames" and stories that have been applied to his pieces were done so by other people after his death. Maybe occasionally we will find a piece that might have a story behind it, but this is most definitely not enough to go on to call him one of the "greatest tone poets", which is in itself very POV-based and surely not the type of statements that should be found on WikiPedia. In fact, stating that he is "widely regarded as the greatest Polish composer" is already pushing the envelope, and then following that up with "one of the greatest tone poets" crosses the line, IMHO. To add to that, the source cited is an offline source not readily accessible, that weakens the case even further. I suggest we remove the tone poet claim, and even consider rewording the preceding "widely regarded as the greatest Polish composer" line as well, since that's clearly weasel language and non-neutral POV. TheFinalSay ( talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to Henryk Rzewuski. However, "Edit" is probably not the best choice for an edit summary, as it provides no more information than no edit summary does. Please keep this in mind when making future edits, and try to write edit summaries that provide a description of the edits you're making. Thank you! -- Ericdn ( talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 15:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You noticed it was missing from Television so you put it back. Sorry, I actually moved it from there a month or two ago, and put it in Films with the other miniseries. (I have left normal weekly TV shows in the Television section.)
Once I moved it, I watched a few of the episodes again (I last saw the series when it first aired back in 1976), and I expanded it to this:
I, Claudius — 1976 BBC miniseries by Herbert Wise on political violence in ancient Rome, involving the murders of members of the Imperial family – Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius, Lucius, the Emperor Augustus (poisoned by his wife Livia), Postumus, Germanicus, "Castor", "Helen", Drusus and Nero, Livilla, the Emperor Tiberius, Gemellus, Drusilla and fœtus, the Emperor Caligula (John Hurt), Caesonia and Julia Drusilla, Messalina, the Emperor Claudius (Derek Jacobi), Britannicus, Agrippinilla – and others
(Some of that is not very historical. Drusilla, for example.)
I also put in the 1937 and 2010 versions of the story, and added an entry to Novels.
Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto)
(I'm sorry. I sort of took over your page. I obviously like it a lot. But many years ago, I was a Top Contributor at the IMDb, so this is an easy area for me. Historical documentary was my main field at the IMDb.)
Congratulations. Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has reviewed your contributions and decided you are an active member. Thank you for your encyclopedic contributions! PS. Please also consider editing your entry in our participants list to state your areas of expertise/interest. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, (Any comment on my note from March 17?)
Do you happen to know where global changes and retrofits are discussed at Wikipedia, before they get implemented?
I've just noticed that someone has done a retrofit where all Nazi films are now German films, all Fascist films are now Italian films. Like there is no difference at all there.
Thanks, Varlaam ( talk) 19:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to renominate this for GAC, but it could use a copyedit by somebody with English proficiency for prose issues. Would you mind?
Completed copyedit, as best I could. Nihil novi ( talk) 07:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your edits to Ed Ricketts. I'm not sure why you are taking paragraphs and splitting them up, but I don't think that is helpful. It almost appears that you are reading the article from a screen with a larger resolution. Remember, when changing layout, do not edit based on a unique screen resolution. Viriditas ( talk) 01:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I answered your question on my talk page, which I missed the first time around. I'll try and add the edition and reference in the next two hours. Viriditas ( talk) 08:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a problem with your latest round of edits. Much of the material you are copying wholesale from sources like American Scientist and replacing the old material which was paraphrased and rewritten to avoid plagiarism. Please correct this or I will be forced to revert all of your new edits. Again, you need to rewrite the material in your own words. Please do not copy it directly from the sources as you are doing. Viriditas ( talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the copyedit of Joseph Campbell! It becomes impossible, after a while, to see where style and content have gotten sloppy. Your sharp eye was much appreciated. David Kudler ( talk) 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 08:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In the past you've copyedited this article once. It has however failed the recent FAC nomination due to objections that this article has not been sufficiently copyedited before and that there are some "prose issues". I'd like to ask you to consider copyediting it again (I am not an native speaker of English so I cannot spot those "prose issues" myself). Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Nihil novi, according to your edit ( (Copernicus' use of the German language does not of itself make him a German astronomer, any more than it would make a German-speaking Swiss astronomer a German.)), you now have to remove all Polish categories from Polish-speaking 19th century figures, like Marie Curie, as they were subjects to the Russian, Austrian, Prussian/German monarchs, or emigrants to other countries. As there was no Poland for 123 years, there were no Polish citizens in that time,and thus no Polish astronomers or similar. The other choice would be to leave the Polish categories, and re-add German categories to German-speaking Prussians of the "Polish partition" (1466-1776), like Copernicus, Hevelius, Fahrenheit etc.. Please be consistent, pick one standard: classification according to ethnicity/culture/language, or by state/citizenship. The "everybody was Polish, always and everywhere" war cry should be left to Serafin and his sock army. -- Matthead Discuß 05:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it's me.
Thanks for reverting Ilovemichaelcrichton and his Jurassic Park. Ha, ha.
Obviously, just a kid.
I think you mean "historical" here, not "historic", perhaps? Those are distinct.
But the way I have been writing the data, if I say "1922 assassination", then that is an historical event. It's real. It doesn't require a word like historic(al). Also, when it is the date of a real event, not an imaginary event, I write 1922. For example, in Woody Allen's Love and Death, it's 1812. But in Woody Allen's Sleeper it's 2173 because that is not a real event.
So I think I want to modify some of your recent changes.
Now, I love Woody Allen. I read ALL of his books 30 years ago. But I NEVER include character names. Like Boris. Because the names of fictional characters are not important.
In my thinking, if I name a person, Napoleon, then he's real, and I can say Napoleon. If he's fictional, only his job is important (hitman), not his name. So I never include that. It's unnecessary. It's too much information.
What do you think?
Varlaam ( talk) 06:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
So, just so we are clear, I would write JFK was killed in 1963, because it is a real person and a real event, but if it's a supermodel in a fictional story who gets killed, then I would write 1963. That is one of the ways I am using now to distinguish history (and fictionalized history) from pure fiction.
Thank you for copyediting this article. I've renominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II/archive3. Feel free to comment, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi! In my opinion, there is not a good idea to put names of people who have no articles in Wikipedia, both from the aestethic (red links) and highest respectability (blue links) point of view (i.e. List of Germans, or List of chess players). On the other hand, there is a possibility to appear not really important people or even fictional persons. -- Mibelz ( talk) 08:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that you have undone one of my recent edits to Poetry by replacing my link to Prose poetry with the text 'prosaic "poetry"'. I'm curious about two points: first, did you intend "prosaic" to mean "commonplace or dull; matter-of-fact or unimaginative" or to mean "having the character or form of prose rather than poetry"? Second, is your use of "poetry" sneer quotes, or what? I'm not clear about your intention; if I'm not clear about it, other readers also may not be, and WP writing should avoid opacity.
I assumed in my edit that the original writer had intended an opposition of "poetic prose" (text characterised as prose, but with features of poetry) to "prose poetry" (text characterised as poetry, but with features of prose). I made the edit because I saw no implication or need of any implication of the common meaning of "prosaic" in the surrounding text (and it would have been a misleading technical use of "prosaic" in the subsidiary meaning); nor was there any evidence of a sarcastic or ironic tone that just possibly might have merited sneer-quoting - though I think sneer-quotes should rarely be used in encyclopaedic writing.
So: is there something that you saw there that I missed in my edit, or were you seeing something that the sense of the text didn't actually imply? I'm open to being convinced. Kay Dekker ( talk) 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments there; you may want to consider voting as well. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
By any chance, would you happen to live there? I am looking for a place to stay in SF for a few days in August :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Future protestant Jan Łaski was ordinated Catholic priest and Catholic canon untill he converted to protestantism. see pl article. Lucas Watzenrode was bad linked from Polish page. I have repaired it. Mathiasrex ( talk) 22:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you add dates of his birth/death, or at least estimates? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Giants 27 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You've been here long enough to know that misleading edit summaries like this are unacceptable. I'm not going to template you because you should know better. If you have a problem with my edits, discuss it at the article's talk page instead of reverting. If you do this again I'm going to report you for edit warring. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 03:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reported you here. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 03:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the meaning of this? Numerous editors have weighed in at the talk page supporting the changes I proposed, you never responded, and now you've undone it. You are ignoring both clear formatting guidelines ( WP:MOSIMAGE) and clear consensus at the talk page that most of those images do not belong. You don't own the page. Again, if you have a problem with the edit, don't revert, go explain your problem at the talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 12:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Do nominate DYK worthy articles for T:TDYKs :) And please archive your talk page, I am having trouble loading it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |