User talk:Merangs/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Merangs. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chile is a OECD member with a high-income economy, which ranks very high in HDI terms, quality of life and several other macro-macroeconomic facts. Furthermore, Chile's HDI it is ahead of economies such as Brunei, Bahrain, Croatia and Oman, plus nearby advanced economies such as Latvia or Portugal which are only two or three steps ahead.

It seems you are just undermining its macro-economical potential by adding content which might be labelled as "unconstructive" and only added based on your biased and non-constructive personal attitude. I do have my own questions regarding your "real intentions", which is by far biased according to me due to your negligence in order to resolve Poland's macro-economical status; which is according to Poland's page a developed country, but that it is against FMI's database regarding advanced economies and therefore a lie.

Have a nice day.

Hello, I'm 182.68.115.0. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Yisrael Kristal have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. 182.68.115.0 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I encourage you to resolve the current dispute on the following page Talk:Chaim_Rumkowski#Current_dispute

Cautious (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed comments and knowledge of the area.

ad (1) I agree, cities have no nationalities, however, they have a population of a certain culture and language. Regarding Elbląg: Its citizens were German-speaking up until 1945, and this should be stated in the Article. I guess you mean that because Elbing belonged to Poland-Lithuania it was Polish-speaking then. No, clearly not, and Yes, indeed, it seems that the city's being Hanseatic did make the city more German. The Hanse was German speaking. Sure, the Hanseatic style is now not only German because found everywhere where the Hanse flourished, but it was German speakers who brought there, also in Estonia, Latvia -- these Hanseatic cities had sizeable German populations and do acknowledge this fact.

As regards to the whole of the Polish 'recovered lands', it just has to be mentioned that the cities before 1945 and after do not have much in common besides their (also ruined) building, and this is what I focus on. Talk of the nice multicultural cities should be left to PR agencies. The region was destroyed first by Nazis, by Nazis' crimes, by the war, to finished by Polish outrage to remove everything German and -- sometimes -- forge an imagined Polish past. Yes, Germans lost everything in the region and Wikipedia should spell out that clearly and follow the Polish Communists' propaganda of regained lands or any seeming continuity.

ad (2) 'reattach' regarding the Kresy. OK, I will not maintain these amendments; I consulted Russian maps dated 1920 which do not include the Kresy. I maintain that strictly speaking it is a correct wording -- it is also more appropriate to say that the SU reattached the Kresy which had been part of the Russian Empire that saying that Pomerania was reattached to Poland. The latter case compares countries of AD 1100 or so which were no nation state or anything while the Kresy was part of Russia before, and also justly so because large parts of it did not have a Polish majority. --Stan Tincon (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

		The Poland Barnstar of National Merit
		For creating the Polonophile article. DYK ...that I am also a Polonophile! 😇 JeBonSer (talk | sign) 18:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for noticing my work. It is much appreciated. Best Regards! Oliszydlowski, 11:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Hey Oliszydlowski, I noticed that your time and date of your signature stamp doesn't much with the time you made your comment. Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the current time and date instead of manually typing this signature stamp. I hope you accept my advice. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 14:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I making disturbing edits about Slovakia? Are you serious?? I am in top 10 editors by added text (16.1%) in this article. So dont tell I making disturbing edits, ok? THANK YOUPeter1170 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oliszydlowski. I don't know if you remember but I was also concerned about the Stan Tincon edits (which have continued) and I have been re-doing or just undoing the ones that are unsourced and not neutral (which is most of them). I got a message on my talk page from another person that threatened to report me to the "Administrators Noticeboard". Should I be concerned about this? It seems to me that I am undoing edits that are harmful, and so the person that should be reported is the one that is making the harmful edits, not the person undoing them. Thank you. Mike Winowicz (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baroque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Branicki Palace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Dzień dobry Oli, mam takie pytanie, czy mógłbyś mi pomóc w sporze z pewnym użytkownikiem IP, który od czasu do czasu się uaktywnia i wandalizuje artykuł o Powstaniu Warszawskim? Neguje liczbę 17 000 poległych, zaginionych i rannych żołnierzy niemieckich do której są źródła (nie komunistyczne). Pozdrawiam. LechitaPL (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Poprosiłem administratorów o tymczasową ochronę strony która uniemożliwi niezarejestrowanym użytkownikom dostęp do edytowania. Oliszydlowski (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Wspaniale! Dziękuję bardzo. LechitaPL (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think that 1 is a worse representation of this architectural structure than 2? Would you put no. 2 on a postcard or a book cover?--Andrei (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Both are good :) Perhaps change one picture and not all. This was discussed before. Picture 2 fits better with the Palace of Culture image due to the background. Also, the previous image of Bristol Hotel stays due to its parameters. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you delete all the historic names I added to former Prussian cities as other name without any comment? I don't want to start an edit war but I want to know your reasons. Rocket1 (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This topic is not to discuss however I am glad you wrote. Firstly by Prussian you mean German as the Prussian language is extinct. Secondly German names are already included in the lead. Infoboxes only contain official names of the country it is in. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

But the other_name tag is there for a reason. Many people still know these cities by their historic names as e.g. Tilsit cheese for Tilsit (now Sovetsk) or Pilsner beer for Pilsen (now Plzeň). It's worth mentioning these historic names. Rocket1 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Historic names are already mentioned. Oliszydlowski (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lower Sorbian language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Slavic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure if you actually live in Poland or not, so I’ll type in English. I don’t understand why you keep changing the kvass article to it being something that is of the past, when it is clearly returning on the market, with its own brand e.g ‘betex’ or ‘kwas chleowby’. You can go to any resturant in Warszawa or Kraków for example, and it is on the menu, same as with bars. Any Local shop you go to, it is also there, usually in plastic bottles or glass bottles, or coming from Ukraine or Lithuania if they’re not Polish. Maybe go to a local polish supermarket and look. I will gladly go to my local one, and show a whole secion dedicated to kvass. I’m just confused, nothing more :). AlsoSlavic220 (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh and its even sold in Western supermarkets, like Kaufland or Carrefour, I don’t know what else indicates the fact that it is gaining popularity. AlsoSlavic220 (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, Kwas is traditional to eastern Poland and not the Polish cuisine as a whole; the fact that you can purchase it in stores or restaurants does not mean it is popular. You can purchase kefir in countries such as Australia or New Zealand or packed curry in Poland. Does that mean there is a high demand? Also, Kwas being sold on street nowadays is a complete lie or extremely uncommon. This isn't the Soviet Union. Secondly, sources such as Onet or Wp are biased and unreliable; they provide shallow commentaries. Looking at your username, I can only imagine that you will dedicate yourself to completely Slavicising the eclectic Polish cuisine as much as possible, without keeping a neutral and balanced tone. The term 'popular' is debatable, hence it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia at all as there is a constant flactuation in trends. Kwas is of eastern origin and has had an impact on eastern Poland and in the Kresy region, whereas in other areas it is less common. Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I never once stated kvass is Polish in origin, we have our own variants which in turn makes them Polish. Kvass is indeed popular in Eastern Poland, but your claim would be irrelevant as I am originally from West/Central Poland, and kvass was introduced to me there by my own acquaintances and family. The fact that kvass in sold in the Streets, does not make it comparable to the soviet union, where on earth did you pull that out from. I was recently in Zakopane, and there was a stall selling freshly made Kvass. So again, your claim that it isnt gaining popularity seems to be some sort a supression of what is now part of the Polish culture. Again, nobody said its popular, it used to be VERY popular during Rzeczpospolita, I simply stated the FACT that it is gaining popularity. I mean there must’ve been some sort of a demand for ‘kefir’ in order for it to be sold in Supermarkets in New zealand, as there is quite a large foreign population. Morever, your assumptions of me trying to ‘slavisize’ things simply based on my username is quite unprofessional and typical. Looking at your edits, you seem to drift nearer the Germanic or Jewish side of things, so no wonder you’d assume such claims. You seem to try and make Poland look less like its neighbours, but more like something it isn’t. Nobody is trying to ‘slavisize’ anything, you’re just going off of my username, which had nothing to do with this in the first place. AlsoSlavic220 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again, in my edits, I never once mentioned the Polish cuisine to be some Slavic funfest, or however you’d like to call it, you simply assumed so. I didn’t state any opinions, nor did I force a rhetoric. AlsoSlavic220 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Przemyśl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archduke Friedrich of Austria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Recently you have undone my edit to Poland because "it widens the infobox". This is unreasonable, because per WP:GRAMMAR, -ism should follow a practice in an official statistic. It also does not widen the infobox, I don't know what were you talking about. Thus, I have undone your edit undoing my edit (no pun intended). Dino245 (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Then compare in revision history and see for yourself how much it widens the infobox. Also, link this WP:Grammar and prove where it says that concerning statistics. I already discussed this before; 87% ARE ROMAN CATHOLIC, not 87% are Roman Catholicism. That's bad grammar. Oliszydlowski (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have reverted my edits. You're welcome Dino245 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I know you are impatient about Poland reaching developed status and all the glory that entails. I get that, I do, but I think we should wait till April 2020. And that map for developing/developed country pages just adds more confusion with the "less developed" term and why Turkey would be part of that. But I assume you just added it because Poland was painted as developed. I'd rather you don't do such impulsive things. KREOH (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Very well. If the map creates confusion let it be previous one. But even if it is a few months apart I do not see why sourced info on Poland page should be changed. Just let the content be as it was before discussion. Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please remove your content until a discussion if finalized. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but remove the report. I support your consensus option: 'from the village of Krasnosielc, Congress Poland, Russian Empire'. Renamed user 2563edsdasdvas1d (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christmas in Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Oli, it is with disappointment that I noted your recent comments on the touristy article that is Wrocław. In answer to your rhetorical question, the English is native British. The insertion of the dwarf images was simply witty and reflects their ubiquity in the city. In my opinion "tacky" applies to the long list of shopping malls. I would have thought that improving articles is our common purpose. Regards, --Po Mieczu (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Per edit summary[1], please note Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding incivility: "Avoid appearing to ridicule ... expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping." Your edit summary would have been adequate and comprehensible without using the word "ridiculous", so just leave it out. DrKay (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you I already read the link attached. I didn't understand why the whole sentence was deleted instead of only the links. Thanks Oliszydlowski (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You are constantly undoing edits using an obvious nationalist leaning even though those changes more precisely express the ethnic identity of Isaac Bashevis Singer. This is unnecessary and also dangerous. No one is denying the fact that Singer was born in Poland and emigrated to America. But he was a Jewish writer, not a Polish writer, and anyone who has read anything by Singer knows that this is a major issue of his writing. See this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25778643. And consider, in "Shosha," that his character says: "The Poles want to get rid of us. They consider us a nation within a nation, a strange and malignant body." This is why writing "Polish-American" author is simply not appropriate for Singer – who was accepted in America in a way that he was never accepted in Poland, from which he fled in 1935 in order to save his life. You might also want to read what Singer wrote about the relationship between Jews and Poles in 1944, at the height of the Holocaust: http://publicseminar.org/2018/09/jews-and-poles/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.136.198 (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You have to discuss it with other users on Wikipedia not only on my page thank you. Always remember that 'Jewish' is not a nationality nor a citizenship only religious indentity and yiddish is just a language. Language does not necessarily delfine natio ality. Here we simply focus on citizenship so Second Polish Rep and Usa. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Służba Bezpieczeństwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Public Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sigismund I the Old, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maximilian I (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

In your edit from 2015 you listed his three wives, with full names. Yet, in a paragraph before, there something about "his wife Janina". Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pavel Vozenilek: - Thank you so much for highlighting this mistake. I already fixed it with reference to Polish Wikipedia. :) Oliszydlowski (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi do you mind to explain what is wrong with this edition, in your opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=940028542 Regards, Kojoto 11:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kojoto (talk • contribs)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sigismund II Augustus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consumption (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent articles, including Dziennik Telewizyjny, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, thank you so much for appreciating my work. Best Regards! Oliszydlowski (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Edward Gierek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liberal

Wojciech Jaruzelski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eastern Front

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Augustus III of Poland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sybarite

Edward Gierek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liberal

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Augustus III of Poland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sybarite

Poland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Canopy

Prehistory and protohistory of Poland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to West Slavic

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent articles, including Polish bed, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this would be a fun topic to put on the front page :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: thank you so much for your appreciation. Sadly, I have no idea how to perfectly nominate the article for Did You Know section, though I tried once and it didn't work. Is it possible for you to do it instead? I would be very grateful. Cheers! Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martial law in Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Post (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mediator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

(Widzę, że jesteś Polakiem, więc będę pisał po naszemu). Wycofałeś moją edycję, chciałbym zwrócić uwagę, że:

• Nazwa "Kraj Nadwiślański" nigdy nie była oficjalną nazwą KP, lecz tylko alternatywną wobec dalej stosowanej głównej nazwy KP do samej I wojny światowej.
• Przed 1883 nigdy nie była stosowana, (co jest w dalszej części artykułu i co jest uźródłowione), więc rok 1867 jest moim zdaniem bezcelowy, w dodatku była po drodze zmiana cara w 1881, więc przesuwanie daty na kilkanaście lat wcześniejszą też bez sensu. Ogólnie uważam, że dla alternatywnej nazwy dalej istniejącego tworu, w dodatku używanej jedynie przez krótki okres czasu jest bez sensu robić osobny artykuł w en wiki. Pozdrawiam, --Kamilhrub (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kamilhrub: Witam. Szczerze mówiąc nie widzę potrzeby aby ten artykuł w ogóle istniał gdyż faktycznie ta nazwa była używana krótko i była mało znacząca, nawet w rosyjskich aktach. Królestwo Polskie, jako region autonomiczny, zachowało swoją pierwotną nazwę aż do samego końca imperium. Poza tym, car Rosji nosił samozwańczy tytuł 'króla Polski', a nie "władcy kraju nadwiślańskiego." Planuję przenieść część informacji z tej strony (Vistula Land) i jakoś je scalić z Kongresówką (Congress Poland). Prawdopodobnie strona Vistula Land zostanie zlikwidowana. Jeśli chodzi o daty to więcej info znajdziesz właśnie na stronie Congress Poland. Tam są podane źródła które potwierdzają właściwy czas końca Królestwa Kongresowego. Pamiętaj że Niemcy i Austro-Węgry utworzyły nowe Królestwo Polskie w 1917 roku jako państwo satelitarne kiedy car Mikołaj abdykował. Dwa lata wcześniej Rosjanie zostali wygnani z polskich ziem więc w rzeczywistości Królestwo Kongresowe przestało istnieć już w 1915 roku. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into this right now but it seems like Special:Contributions/72.205.25.175 has been engaging in long term subtle vandalism. Any chance you could look into this and revert anything that needs reverting? If not don't worry about it. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@L235: - I have been doing so for the past week or two. I already reported the IP and requested protection for the page. :) Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I've blocked for two years. Could you look into some of the older edits e.g. to Spanish peseta? Seems like a lot of the same kind of crap. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@L235: - Sure. Would love to help :) Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for changing the name of Zofia Nehring. I didn’t know the Russian rules :). I also saw you deleted her married surenames (Duda and later Krzeszczyk). How should her married named be added to the article? SportsOlympic (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you will open discussion? I already discussed about changes in the article. Varenyky and pierogi articles were united, because this is "the same dish". Why ravioli and pierogi aren't united in one article? Why there is kolduny article? Dumplings are different all over the world, but between pierogi and varenyky aren't differences. This is the same dish, which have same form, recipe and fillings. I don't delete links.. I only wrote article based of links (about varenyky) and added link on the westukrainian origin in the Poland. In Ukraine this dish known like pyrohy too. VladOz (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I expanded this article, which you worked on before, perhaps you'd like to review it or copyedit it or such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure :) @Piotrus: Can you in the meantime review my newly created article Krosno Glassware? I'd appreciate it a lot! Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, will take a look soon. Can you reformat Google Book cites with [2] or Visual Editor (but VE doesn't scrape page numbers so they need to be added manually). PS. I should add the article seems to have attracted a SPI troll, so check the edit history before reviewing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - I fixed and corrected the book cites for the article Krosno Glassware. I also reviewed Zygmunt Krasiński and placed some images into the body so it does not seem too bare. Good work! :) Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. My only additional comment is to pay more attention to formatting references. Book references should cite pages or page ranges. "Krosno": who is the publisher? Or [3] which should cite the author/date I see at the link. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am kindly asking you to pay more attention to edits like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ksi%C4%85%C5%BC&diff=959164915&oldid=948431790 (this picture was double featured).

Sometimes it is counterproductive and undermines a huge effort in improving the general quality of photos, as those are reviewed and selected by a big community of professional Commons photographers. Thank you! --Andrei (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew J.Kurbiko: Ok, it was featured. But it is outdated because there was a fire at Książ and the castle was restored recently (you can see difference on the photo). So I do not see how me updating the picture was counterproductive. Maybe pay attention to details. :) Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew J.Kurbiko: – Maybe also consider changing the image of dreadful "Młotek" (on Architecture of Poland page) to a normal block-house (bloki) estate in which people live. These are present in all major cities and the Młotek itself isn't a widely recognized building outside Warsaw. Maybe place Nowa Huta, an example of socialist utopia or the Palace of Culture and Science that everyone knows. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spycimierz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corpus Christi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Oliszydlowski,

I see you are watching the Lady with an Ermine page :) I am planning to work on it in the same fashion as I have with Portrait of a Musician and La Scapigliata. Unfortunately, listing the work as "by Leonardo da Vinci" will not do, since the attribution has been heavily questioned in the past and has never had a universal consensus. Listing it as "Widely attributed" is per the information from List of works by Leonardo da Vinci. I have a bunch of academic sources in front of me and will be replacing most of the references with ones from them. (I will be mostly adding information and not removing) This includes listing the painting as "Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani" as 6 of the books I have in front of me refer to it by that name before the more popular name. I hope you understand I am not trying to undermine your work in any way, but many many books have been produced on Leonardo's works and I plan to integrate the information they offer into the article. I hope to get this article to GA status in the next few weeks and perhaps FA at some point in the future and I would rather work with you, than against! Best Aza24 (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean, but have you got a proper discussion source or recent (past 5-6 years) credible bibliography to suggest that the it is not by da Vinci? Also, I think any alternative names should be avoided for confusion, or, placed in other parts of articles rather than the lead. The lead is for what we known and what is certain. "Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani" is a very colloquial name based solely on description that should not be supported. In arts and culture it is widely known by its current name. I personally never came across any alternatives. I think the validity of those sources may be questionable and the authors went too far. Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree that Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani is a colloquial name (almost every unnamed Renaissance portrait derives its name from the description of the painting...) I can agree that for it to be put in a note at the beginning. Almost all of my sources are from the last 15 years or so and most of them from even sooner. While I do concur that none of my sources from the last 5 years doubt the attribution, they all mention that the attribution is not solid. As for the books themselves they are from the leading Leonardo scholars and are about as reliable as it gets. (Martin Kemp, Pietro C Marani, Carmen Bambach, Carlo Pedretti and Frank Zöllner among others)

The real issue with referring to this painting as "By Leonardo da Vinci" is because there are only really 5 major works (The Adoration of the Magi, Saint Jerome in the Wilderness, Virgin of the Rocks, The Last Supper and the Mona Lisa) that are universally attributed to Leonardo. There was serious debate over the authenticity of the Lady with an Ermine in the past (a court case was involved I believe) and the lack of contemporary evidence makes it impossible to confirm the attribution, so I doubt it will ever be universal. Aza24 (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Very well, the colloquial name can be place in note mode. In terms of the authenticity, I am not an expert in art, but only a simple admirer so I trust you provide credible sourcing for any claims related to this. Thanks for clarification. Cheers. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

there is a working Wikipedia enry for Michele Morrone in English - just click on it or search for it Julieprus (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Julieprus: Very well. My mistake. Thank you for clarifying. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You're very welcome - Pozdrawiam Julieprus (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Oli. A few months ago (in April) a Wikipedia user had changed Goldwyn's birth date from Aug 17 to Aug 27 but you reverted it. Could you please explain why? That was actually the date (27 and not 17) that Goldwyn himself used in his official documents.46.177.203.28 (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but could you provide a source please? That would be great. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

His social security and in a passport application he gave his birth date as August 27,1882. The year, of course, is false but he had no reason to lie about the date. In addition Scott Berg mentioned this date in his book about Goldwyn. 46.177.203.28 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I don't doubt, but I meant I need links to this information. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am putting the date from social security death index. 46.177.203.28 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Kahane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grzymałów (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Notrium (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Who is "we" here?[4][5] François Robere (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page E40 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that keeping a record of destroyed monuments, as at Poznań, is a far better way to remember the people and places involved than sweeping them under the rug of history to be forgotten, but I am new to this section of the world and it seems to be your domain. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frikadeller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scandinavian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There was discussion, where i wrote, that pierogi (varenyky) - separate dish, not all dumplings of the world (that originated in China). There aren't other "local names" of the dish except pierogi and varenyky. There is article dumplings for another dishes and "local names". — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladOz (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi ! You removed my edit about Sigismund III and the jesuits, as the removed passage was a "sourced info". Well, the way I see it, the relevant source is a copy of a XIXth century work of anti-jesuit/catholic polemic, which is heavily biaised and inacurrate. Monumentàlinsurgé (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)M

I mostly see the point of removing most of my edits, but the ones for Gliwice and Katowice I don't. Glywicy and Katowicy aren't as used in silesian as plain Gliwice and Katowice so I belive it should be noted so. It doesn't matter that they are the same in my opinion. Sleesian (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sleesian: If they are the same then why should we include them? It just extends the lead section and clutters it. Instead, I think you can put it into history (or better etymology) section as one sentence - "The city is known as Katowice in both Polish and the regional Silesian language etc." Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright I agree, thanks Sleesian (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The Gevorgyan source is based on info from 2015 and Macrotrends isn't a reliable source. You have not proven this to have enough due weight to be in the lead. There are many countries with higher or similar unemployments rates that do not have it in their lead. There are even many more concerning poverty rates.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see you wrote on here. Agreed with unemployment, however, Armenia's poverty (both extreme poverty, and slight poverty i.e. below the poverty line) rate in relation to its population is exceptionally high, as it is in the rest of the Caucasia region; ranging from 20 to 40% depending on the source. Nevertheless, I won't add the text again as that information seems to be missing in other country articles. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank You for Your kind comment on subject. Four years ago, editors forced the change to their better knowledge and I have been gone since then on en:wiki. I looked at Your userpage and You seems to have very interesting background. Seems that You like Polish history, which is also what I research since long, long time although I dont get wiser of that. Instead, I just face more questions. Im 57 so its just 8 years left before I can go full time on research and writing books. One should be out at the end of this year. On pl:wiki we work on this article. Im very interested in different point of view as long discussion is based on mutual respect for different opinions. Im also very interested in history of Jews in Poland and if You are also interested in subject, it would be interesting to exchange thoughts. Few years ago, I rewrote art. on Kielce pogrom on Swedish Wiki few years ago which was extreemly hard to do (almost dramatic/traumatic). If I can contribute within my field of knowledge, I will be glad to help. Best regards, Camdan (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Camdan: - Thank you for your kind words and I would love to help. Please send me a message if you require it. I am also interested in the history of Central Europe, but I'd call myself an amateur historian since my primary field is more engineering. Are you Polish? Best Regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes Im born in Poland but live abroad some 45 years now, mostly in Sweden. However, I visit Poland often. No problem with being amateur historian. One can read and study for 30 years just to notice that its necessary to start over from the beginning as its necessary with proper translation of latin for start :) Its like what Jung said after his "divorse" with Nietzche: In my career I climbed up and up on the ladder and when I was on the top, I noticed that this ladder is leaning towards wrong House. History is difficult since there are many different conclusions and hypothesis but its amazing! I will be very gratefull for Your help and advise in the future. Best regards,Camdan (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Camdan: - Sorry for my curiosity and inquisitiveness but did you leave Poland after or as a result of the March events of 1968? Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem, nothing to hide :) No, I left 1972 and it had nothing to do with 1968 or politics, religion - we where not party members either. My family origin from Wolyn - so there was quite a lot that happened there as you know. And You, whats Your story being Polish, Jewish, German and Austrian? :) Thats interesting mix! Do You feel some "split" inside? Camdan (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What do You think about article Polish heraldry? I worked on this few years ago before I left en:wiki down to "Pecularities", mostly by adding sources and making small changes. In my opinion, art. is not bad but it still need inline citations, most in section "Peculiarities" and "Shield". Could You help to improve that article? Regards, Camdan (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Camdan: - Well actually I'm also of Lithuanian origin, since my great grandfather was born in the former lands of the Grand Duchy, which is now Belarus. He also claimed Lithuanian nationality. He came to Poland in 1945 during the 'resettlement'. That's all I know as I have never met him. No I do not feel a split, although I must say I do like emphasizing on German influence in Poland and on Polish culture. Both parents' sides were in majority Germans and Lutherans who came to the Lodz region in the 19th century. One side was nobility from the Duchy of Coburg. Strong German customs left in the family too, although we fail to realize and notice. I've been to Vohlynia (Wołyń) briefly a while back. Dreadful and wild place. And the history is even worse. I hope your family managed to survive. I will have a look at the Polish heraldry this week and see what I can do. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so we have 'resettlement' in common ;). It always make a mark, even on future generation when You grow up with people that experienced a lot. Yes Part of family survived and in all with other lines maybee 10% and Im still on finding just some "rests" after 30 years searching for reltives. But last year I got file from archives of NKWD (as they release some of the documents) so I can now establish why family members where executed or sent to Siberia. They call it "kontrabanda" :). Since millions of people died in starvatin in Ukraine 1932-33, they acutally organized attack's on Russian convoy's with weapon and on horses to get back the food for the people :) Well, in this case "Szlachta baluje - plebs baluje" would be a bit strange ;) Morals of many was to protect people, becase it was their duty to do so. Catherine the Great wrote once that we (Russia) can not win over Poland cause they will never give up but...once you break their morals, you can rule! Clever girl! She started and more followed. This is also why professors in Krakow was among the first to be executed. I note that You like emphasizing on German influence in Poland and on Polish culture, its interesting. I also have thoughts about it from the books about Preussen as it was stated - "we are not Germans and we are not Polish, we are Prussians!" :) My father lived in Switzerland and Germany (highly educated) for some 15 years and when he come back, he was on the way to turn back 10 times or more :D But he finally stayed because of one reason, and there "can be the only one". Its hard to write about all of this here cause its not the Forum but Im sure that if we would meet up - we could discuss for hours. It would be a pleasure to meet You. Im often traveling to Poland. Where do You live? Alternative could be mail.Camdan (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Camdan: I spend half my time in Poland and the other half overseas. You can message me on oliszydlowski1@gmail.com Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank You! I appreciate giving me Your mail address.Camdan (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Camdan: - How are you going Camdan? How is your editing going? Been writing much about the clans recently? Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Polish monarchs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sigismund I and Casimir IV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Polish monarchs

added links pointing to Cardinal, Sobieski and Rafał Leszczyński

Sigismund III Vasa

added a link pointing to Polish Livonia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mstów, Silesian Voivodeship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casimir IV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi sorry to bother you but the page about Varso Tower has been changed by a Russian troll and an unregistered user stating that Varso Tower has an antenna which it doesn't it has a spire and that it will be the 7th tallest building in the EU which isn't true as it will be the tallest in the EU I'm a basic skilled user on wiki and that's why I'm asking you to intervene.

Thanks. Omg55557w77w7 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, please give your precise reason for going against all scholarly understandings of Singer's identity as a Polish-born American-Jewish Author – not in terms of Wikipedia but in scholarly terms that explain your position.

This is something that has been repeatedly changed by you without giving sufficient reason for reverting this change.

Also, you write "as per source," but your change is NOT as per source, since the source clearly says "Polish-born Jewish-American author."

Your reversions totally ignore the fact that Singer was actually born in the Russian Empire, not in Poland, lived in the United States as an American citizen for fifty-six years, and was Jewish not only culturally but also as part of his literary identity, writing about Jewish life in Poland and America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBSLiteraryTrust (talk • contribs) 11:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but your explanatory is not correct at all and the sources you provided are not unanimous. This is Wikipedia and "Jewish" is not a nationality only a (religious) identity so there is no way that is making into the lead. Secondly, Singer was born in Congress Poland, so by you stating not born in "Poland" is completely false (or misinterpretation). His parents were Polish Jews which clearly defines that. Citing other "websites" should be only secondary to published book references. Maybe get other users involved before you proceed with the change per WP:RfC. Thanks. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Can u tell me WHY u changed the organization that replaced Ministry of Public Security?

• according 2 u is because
  • the commission was vert short lived; successors dont have to follow each other directly)

Plus commission?
My grandfather and 3 of his friends got arrested by provincial office of Commette of Public Security in the city of Olsztyn WUdsBP. 11 days later their case was taken over by VII Department of KdsBP in Warsaw. witch (seams like U don't know) was former Investigation Department of MBP, 11 of September 9 1955 all of them were executed.

Ministry for Internal affairs MSW took over in 1956 when Gomułka took over as 1st secretary KC PZPR. AND WHY THE NAME COMMETTE FOR PUBLIC SECURITY. Take a look when KGB was created, u will understand.

commission was vert short live. Omg. You and myself would never wanted to be interrogated by KdsBP. I know I wouldn't

Ataman (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Added. Oliszydlowski (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

		The Purple Star
		For enduring the unpleasant side of Wikipedia without stopping to believe in the general helpfulness of the community, and for never giving up to improve the encyclopedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this! Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken/English_Patriot_Man_socks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken#LeftiePete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.109.213 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poles&diff=991316329&oldid=991312024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.109.213 (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Oliszydlowski, I really don't appreciate you nominating Lady with an Ermine for GA without even running it by me. There's still quite a bit I plan on adding to the article and considering that the page statistics credits us with equal contributions on the article, I am a little taken aback that you've not only nominating it, but done so completely by yourself. I would ask that you close the nomination and give me a few weeks to add what I was planning to in the first place; there is still no discussion of attribution, historical context, dating or legacy/influence. I recognize my efforts have been slow, but I put it aside temporarily with WP:TIND in mind. However, knowing your enthusiasm for the work, I will do my best to pick up where I left off. Regards, Aza24 (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: - I was not aware nor informed that the 'Lady with an Ermine' article is incomplete or in the process of being expanded. I nominated the article based on the content already included, which is good, direct and well referenced. Articles concerning works of art tend to be much shorter than others, hence my decision to nominate it. I was also not aware that I am to inform other users such as yourself of nominating any pages, though I admit I could've posted a note on the talk page. Nobody was against it. So I am not to blame. Regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norsemen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Slavic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for info on how to edit a page / start a discussion. I have added the point to Bagel discussion page. Please refer to a new article in Serious Eats written by a legitimate and established food writer, which has traced the origin of the bagel much farther back than the 16th century the article currently stops at. The article is well researched - including the references mentioned in current Bagel wiki page + additional academic sources going back to the middle ages.

Please refrain from deleting new academic information as it becomes available. If you have different academic research to counter these new claims, then by all means include them, otherwise, please refrain from edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figsandpecans (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Figsandpecans: I suggest reading Wikipedia rules. I am not the one engaging in edit warring, moreover one more user has reverted your edit. I do not doubt your sources or what you posted but you have provided no page number (for books) or direct reference to a part where your claim can be supported. There is no trace of discussion on the Talk:Bagel page, hence you are engaging in Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski I have update the discussion page. I thought I had done so earlier but apparently had not published what I wrote. Apologies on my part. The pages in the referenced book are xxxiv and 189. If you are going to look through a Kindle version of the book, pages will obviously be different, but these are the pages in the hard copy. Am I now able to update the information per this research?

Thank you for starting the discussion. Let's continue there. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bread and salt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nordic people.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Oliszydlowski, i created a new photo montage for the page Lübeck, and i would appreciate your opinions concerning this photo montage, especially with regard to a comparison between the photo montage and the single photo which can be seen at "Lübeck" now. The photo montage that i created:

and the single photo:

Thank you in advance.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@TheCarlos1975: - Can't you see that images 1a, 2b, 3a and 3b are near identical and show the same landmarks and monuments in different weather and from different angles? It's not very constructive. Are there any other monuments in Lubeck that would replace these? Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

1a: St Jacob's, St Mary's and St Peter's, 2a: Holsten Gate, 2b: Nightly Cathedral, 3a: Cathedral and Sacred Heart Church, 3b: Trave river front, 4a: Travemünde. So it's actually 5 different churches, the main landmark Holsten Gate, the seaside resort, and of the two photos of the cathedral, one is at night and with the river and the other is completely different, at daylight, and with a second church. Also, isn't one thing sure, that your one photo is worse than the montage? Why don't you suggest better photos for the montage? I think the montage looks gorgeous and your argument is not understandable, at least not to me. Would the montage be ok for you now, given the enduring possibility for you to change one or two photos?TheCarlos1975 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the photos themselves, as I stated before. It is their repetitive nonconstructive nature. Aren't there any other nice pictures preferably not showing the same structures in different daylight or weather. Any other landmarks? For example, there is no need for two monotonous images of the Lubeck Cathedral. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the main landmarks of Lübeck are the Holsten Gate, the five main churches, and the seaside resort. Of the five main churches, by far the most well-known are St Mary's and the cathedral. So i don't see a big problem in showing the cathedral twice, also because the two photos showing it are completely different. But if you had any better photo, why not alter the montage. But so long, why show just the single photo instead of the montage? The question would be, is the single photo better or the montage, even if it's not yet perfect in your eyes?TheCarlos1975 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@TheCarlos1975: - Not every small or mid-sized city requires a montage. One good image is sometimes better than six monotonous ones. If you find a substitute for the repeated cathedral image, I wouldn't be against the collage. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be kind if you wouldn't oppose the montage anymore even with those two photos, because they are to me two of the most beautiful photos of the city. The nightly one because of its especially nice mood, and the second one because it shows how crooked the towers are. I have had so much work with the montage, please help me, and change the photo yourself if you have any better idea, because i don't. Please tell me if we can agree, that as long as the montage is not yet perfect in your eyes, it is still better to show the montage, than the single photo. The montage, even if it shows the cathedral twice, gives a better overview of the city than the single photo, and Lübeck as the cradle of all Hanseatic cities along the Baltic, is important enough for a montage. There are long-standing montages of cities which are much worse i can tell.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer as quickly as possible please, because i can't go on without your approval.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@TheCarlos1975: - I replaced a few old images with new ones which were taken by one author on the same day. Please view the montage above and let me know if you agree with it. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but sorry, no i don't. Photo 2a is just also the Holsten Gate, but an uglier photo. Because the sky isn't as blue as in the original version, and because there is a person disturbing the view in the foreground. Photo 2b is just an unknown bridge which is not a landmark of the city, photo 3a is just also the same as in the original version, but much uglier, with a greyer sky, and photo 3b is also not very nice, also grey sky, and there is this ugly modern building with the white roof disturbing the view. So i don't think that the new version is an improvement compared to the old one. Additionally there is now no nightly view of anything anymore. When directly comparing the two versions, i think that the original version is much nicer. So while there is indeed no repeating photo of the cathedral now anymore, all other photos are now uglier. The beautiful river front is also not visible anymore. Do you really think that the new version is nicer, when directly comparing it to the original one? Your opinion is again appreciated.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Greyer skies make the picture more ugly? That sounds highly unprofessional. Regardless, if you still support your version then go ahead and incorporate it into the article. As I said, I would only replace the double image of the cathedral because surely there is another landmark out there. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for not insisting.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, do you have a source for German being a majority language in certain communes of Poland? Also, the term "auxiliary" also means co-official in this case, so adding it to the list is redundant. Preventing a potential edit war here. Thank you. - Moalli (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Moalli: - I do not find it redundant at all to place a semi-synonymous but different term for comprehension. I have also shifted the information to the appropriate section about co-officials in the lead. Thank you for outlining that. Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Oliszydlowski, sorry to bother you again, but would this photo montage of Stralsund be ok for you?

Thank you in advance.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It is ok. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted my edit on the page for Gdańsk, I am curious why as you mentioned adding "Danzig" under the native title section was incorrect despite the fact that a large native german speaking minority in the city would refer to it as Danzig? Thanks, --BestOnLifeform (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no large German minority of greater significance in Gdańsk at present. If we were to add historical names, it would have to also include Swedish, Kashubian etc, hence it is redundant. Alternative names are already mentioned in the lead section. Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two possible versions of the photo montage of Schwerin. Just tell me your opinion again.

Thank you in advance.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Second option is best in my opinion. It is smaller and shows most important landmarks. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo 1a both versions: i think the photo of the castle in the first version is much nicer, because it wasn't taken in winter, and because it shows the castle in a golden light. Also, it focuses more on the castle and doesn't show as much of its surroundings as the photo of the second version. Photo 2a of the first version is actually the same photo as photo 3a of the second version, but with nicer colours and nicer weather. Photo 2b first version: the castle gardens are one of the main attractions of Schwerin, and they don't appear in the second version. Photo 3a first version is the uniquely beautiful ceiling of the castle church. Another option would be the throne room with the throne of the Dukes of Mecklenburg. Photo 3b first version: Mecklenburg State Theatre at night, one of the seldom nightly views of the city that exists, and photo 4a first version, finally, a nice view over the city. What is it actually exactly in photos 2a and 2b of the second version? What is this and why are these landmarks of Schwerin? I think that the first version is much more suitable to give a nice overview of Schwerin, would you accept it?TheCarlos1975 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The first montage is a compilation of exuberant repetitive photographs, some of which do not represent Schwerin directly (an absolute no to church interiors). Second version is smaller and more diverse, eg winter landscape. Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

So tell me, please, which photos of the first version would have to be changed so that it would be acceptable for you? Photo montages of cities do not use typically winter photos, but tend to use summer or spring photos. But you could show me of course some photo montages with winter photos if there are any. When directly comparing the first photos of the two versions, do you really think that the one of the second version is better? Please have a look at how beautiful the castle looks in the first version, and the golden light in which it appears, and then tell me again, what you think of the comparison. You are also the only one of whom i heard, that church interiors may not be used in photo montages. Is there anyone else with the same opinion concerning this? And do you know another photo which could be used instead? I'd also like you to compare photo 2a of the first version and photo 3a of the second version again. Isn't the one in the first version much nicer? Please also tell me, why photos 2a and 2b of the second version are landmarks of Schwerin.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The article cites "Korzon 1889" and "Shubin 2009" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Renata3: - Thank you for pointing this out. I will address the issue shortly. Best regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Renata3: - All done. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

the nature of the edit was not vandalism, as i saw there was no other indication that poland does not support LGBTQ rights, i simply put it on where it was most deserved. do not assume every edit i make or others make is vandalism, unless it is blatantly pointed out. P10n3rr (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss. Your claim is of personal nature and it should not go into the lead. It is pure Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. It is neither professionally written, nor sourced (although it is evident that the government doesn't support it and that's pure hatred). It is the fact that you placed it in that section easily points out the intentions. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Augustus II the Strong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order of the White Eagle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sigismund III Vasa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What's your reason for the mass removal of content from the article Vilnius? You didn't provide a clear-cut explanation for the removal in the summary. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony Peter: Excessive information not linked to the city or its direct history. Countless examples of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and of low relevance per Wikipedia:Relevance quote "Material that is irrelevant or out of scope to an article's topic can unnecessarily bloat an article, making it difficult for a reader to remain focused, and can also give the material undue weight". The article is much too long and uncomfortable to navigate. It should not be classified as a B-class page in the first place. Content was deleted per Irrelevant section of the Wikipedia:Content removal. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay. You can proceed with your action. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hold on. After hearing from the part of a user from Vilnius, who himself added most of the content in the article, it's been almost convinced that the mass removal doesn't make any sense. Any article has has the right to use their country language/dialect. As those contents were cited, there is no need of removal. I don't know whether you have any personal grudges on Lithuanian objects as the informer said, but if I find out it's true, I'll go on to take action against you. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 04:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: Next time please link me to the discussion so I am aware that it is taking place and so I can have my say in it also. I have cited Wikipedia policies and was following Wiki guidelines stated above. Please refrain from scaring me with actions and this sentence "personal grudges on Lithuanian objects as the informer said" is unacceptable. I think this is unprofessional conduct, especially towards experienced users. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: I'm not scaring anyone. I should hear from both sides. Experience may be a huge difference between us, but moreover we are editors, and has the responsibility to inform the matter to much higher designated personalities in here if we are involved in any matter of dispute. No disrespect to you. I am trying to do what I can do better. Thank you.Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski @Ken Tony - Is there a way to report a user for mass deletion and mass reverting topics?

Merangs has revereted the citations and changes made to several articles by several Wikipedia volunteers as evidenced by the talk page.

~~~ TheTypingKat (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: - Ok, thank you for clarifying. I just felt a bit attacked. All I attempted to do improving/cutting a lengthy article. Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: Ha. No worries. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sigismund III Vasa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chamberlain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the problem of describing him as "a Polish-born Jewish writer living in America" instead of as "Polish-American writer"? The former includes his nationality as well as the ethnicity which clearly informed his work.

I think this is not like arguing over Freud, Einstein and Marx where one can claim them as German/Austrian vs Jewish. In that case, their ethnicity was not a component of their achievement.

But in terms of Singer, his Jewish ethnicity was a key component both of his writing and of his audience. Why can't "a Polish-born Jewish writer living in America" be seen as a compromise? Otherwise, there is no mention of his being Jewish at all in the introduction.

UClaudius (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no such thing as Jewish in the sense of citizenship or nationality. Jewish is a religious identity and it can be expressed for religious leaders. This has been discussed heavily on Wikipedia in general. I think "a writer in Yiddish" is an appropriate expression. Considering he held both citizenships, Polish-American is also accepted. See Context Section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This image is from Polish wikipedia... VladOz (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It's too much imagery already. Isn't it evident? Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, the statement you inserted is blatantly POV... "TVP media has been transformed into a propaganda-like outlet for the governing party", anytime someone throws around the word "propaganda" it raises questions marks about objectivity, and sounds more like political hype. Pls start to differentiate between sources, instead of just picking a few that suit your POV, from NGO's or opinions from magazines. --E-960 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Consider George Friedman, who a couple of years back he commented on the hysteria surrounding Poland and Hungary, saying: "A perfect case now is the supposed discovery that Poland and Hungary are fascist states. I have seen fascist states, and there is a long way to go before these are fascist states! ". --E-960 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@E-960: - I just reworded what was previously added by another user. My opinion is neutral in this topic. You can delete it or rephrase it if you'd like. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents, TVP has a history of being an advocacy mouthpiece of every government in control because it is state-owned.. that's the fact.. but if this should be covered in the man article about Poland is another issue. I don't think it should be. That info applies to the article about TVP, not Poland. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree. Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mustard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oli,

I would like to let you know that your latest edit in the Louis B mayer article really messed up things.You write :

"According to Scott Eyman, Mayer was born in Minsk, in what was then Russia and today is Belarus. Bosley Crowther suggested that the birthplace has been misinterpreted and Mayer was in fact from the town of Mińsk Mazowiecki in eastern Poland, which at the time was subjugated by the Russian Empire. Other potential locations included Dymer near Kiev in Ukraine".

The truth is that Mayer's birth place according to the various authors that wrote about him the past sixty years was : Bosley Crowther "a little town near Minsk" Samuel Marx "Demre", Gary Carey "Dmra", Irene mayer selznick "Kovno,(present-day) Lithuania", Charles Higham "Dymer", Scott Eyman "Dymer", Andrzej Krakowski "Minsk Mazowiecki". 79.167.226.243 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think my edit is a step to improve it in fact. If you have sources then by all means do add them and clarify. However, the place of birth in the infobox must stay empty due to the discrepancy. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louis of Anjou.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Isaac_Bashevis_Singer and [6]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In the article both parties expressed opinion so the article itself is fair. However, I did outline that the outcome is against Wiki rules and guidelines. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, IMHO the piece is very unfavorable towards you. I mean, it ends with the accusation of the other party that you are a troll. Last word, etc. I don't think it is balanced at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I think that it is unfair, both parties expressed opinion. I think the best action would be reversing any edits that you consider against Wikipedia policy. I am maintaining neutrality. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes that troll accusation is ridiculous. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sigismund III Vasa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SergeWoodzing -- SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I was wondering (I am new here) could you please edit the site "Silesia" and add to the table with the Towns - population bigger than 20,000 the town Sosnowiec. Sosnowiec it is a large town in Silesia but I may be wrong it is not in the table.

Thank you, Michal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michal.Oxford (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Michal.

I had a look and it seems that whilst Sosnowiec is currently in the Silesian Voivodeship, it historically lies in Lesser Poland. Much like Częstochowa. Regards. Merangs (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Merangs i noticed you edit pages on Silesian areas (I also pop in Occasionally) like Silesia, Bielsko-Biala and Katowice, are you by any chance from there? I'am just curious not trying to do anything bad.You have a cool user page btw. Good day.

The article Sigismund III Vasa you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sigismund III Vasa for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The article Sigismund III Vasa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sigismund III Vasa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your edit summary here seems to claim that "Gustavus II Adolphus" is a known name form. It is not. That's what I corrected to one of that king's known name forms. We can add constructive content to articles without whacking each other on the nose. I'm sure you know that. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: - Gustavus Adolphus alone is sufficient for lead purposes. It is the title of that respectable article. I do not see how changing Gustavus Adolphus into Gustav II Adolf is constructive in any shape or form. Both are indeed correct, but I purely based the assumption on the name of that article for clarity. Can you explain the superiority of one over the other? Also, thank you for altering the lead section a bit. It looks more neutral and clearer now. Merangs (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You have missed the issue. "Gustavus II Adolphus" (Gustavus II Adolphus) with the "II" in there, i.e. "Gustavus II Adolphus" (with the II) is the unknown name form. "Gustavus Adolphus" and "Gustav II Adolf" are both known name forms for the man. Both of them are used about as much in all kinds of academic literature. I made a change from one unknown, incorrect name form "Gustavus II Adolphus" (with II) to a known & correct name form for him. No need to discuss anything else here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Regards for pointing this out. Merangs (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

About those new articles: Kingdom of Poland (1025–1031)m Duchy of Poland (1031–1076), Kingdom of Poland (1076–1079), Duchy of Poland (1079–1138), Duchy of Poland (1138–1227), Kingdom of Poland (1300–1320)? Something to discuss at WT:POLAND, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - The size and importance of those is ridiculous. It further hurts the credibility of Wikipedia. Unless it is a Duchy, there should be one detailed (and well sourced) article for the Kingdom of Poland from the year of its foundation to 1569. If you look in the infoboxes, at the bottom it says that the "Duchy of Poland" was preceded by the Duchy of Poland and succeeded by the Duchy of Poland. How credible and professional is that? However, the deletion process would be much too lengthy and tiresome with all the explanations. Perhaps they could be merged into a one Duchy and one Kingdom of Poland? Merangs (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll ping the creator User:Artemis Andromeda. I also concur that those are strange entities that probably don't need their own articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Since AA didn't reply and I also note they effectively deleted (by stealth redirect) the long standing and stable article here, I propose to revert that edit, and convert the recently created articles back into a redirect. Would you concur? PS. I'll ping User:Artemis Andromeda once more, and I'd be fine with a bigger RfC, maybe on WT:POLAND too (the arguments in their edit summary are reasonable, it's just that due process of seeking consensus was skipped).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - Considering the user has not responded, I think you should go ahead with these suggestions. If anyone disagrees, your edit will be reverted and then we can start a WP:RfC. WT:POLAND seems to be ineffective. The sourced content from new articles should be transferred to one single page, so that AA's contribution is not lost. Merangs (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: @Merangs: Good day. Sorry for late response. Ok, I want to admit that some of those articles are short, but, at the same time I disagree with going back to how it looked. Especially, that Poland until 1138 and Poland after that, were 2 different types of states, with Poland until then being united state, while one after that being a loosely connected confederation of states. Also, in contrast to what the previous article stated, Poland between 1227 and 1300 did not exist as one state in any form as there was no single ruler of Poland as status High Duke of Poland (Senior) was discontinued in 1227, with all duchies becoming independent. What I would propose, we could unite articles about states between 960 and 1138 into article titled "Early Piast Dynasty", "Early Piast Monarchy" or "Early Piast Poland", same as Polish Wikipedia does it (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchia_wczesnopiastowska). Then I would keep Duchy of Poland (1138–1227) and then Kingdom of Poland (1300–1320), as it was again different from the later state, as it was the recreation of the confederation of duchies, while the one after 1300 was a unified singular state. Then, I would keep United Kingdom of Poland and Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda Somehow I missed your ping here. You make a good point, and it's not like I hear a lot of others disagreeing (although I still think it might be worth moving this discussion to WT:POLAND). Anyway, I still have some concerns over entries like Kingdom of Poland (1295–1296). Do we really need an entry for a state that lasted two years? And finally, is there any reliable reference that uses such periodization? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Repetitive really. Listen your deleting my edits. Now I added the audio as a defence so whoever erases it counts as vandalism. If you want to be helpful, atkeast put the Polish IPA and audio for Szczecin besides the German one. This is ridiculous. Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deutschland1871: - No, it won't count as vandalism if they do not agree and are willing to discuss per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Nobody deleted the audio. I will conform to your edit if you explain the importance of the Low German variation in the lead. I think German by itself is enough. Merangs (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, Low German speakers inhabit northern Germany despite their name and have settled there along with High German speakers and they have had a cultural impact on the region. The area Szczecin was inhabited by Germanic people's around 1AD. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

And also addthe Polish IPA and audio besides the German one aswell. There is a reason why my username is Deutschland1871. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: - What is the purpose of you adding a German name to Warsaw? Also, some Northern German city articles do not have a Low German variant in their respective lead sections. Merangs (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Their was an unused audio file, that's why I added it. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: - That is not how Wikipedia works. If the German variant is not significant for the region, and mind you Warsaw was not part of the German Empire after 1871, then it should not be added even if there is an audio file. Merangs (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I was just searching audio Files and I found it. No page seemed to have used it as far as I know so what is the purpose of an audio File existing when it is not used if not at the very least rarely. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

Understandable. The German Empire did had Warsaw vriefly in 1914 to 1919. Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deutschland1871: - This audio file is probably used in German Wikipedia. Merangs (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me check. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

Wait a sec, hold it. Its not on the German Wiki page for Warsaw. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: - I only assumed. Feel free to add it there as it should be there. On English Wikipedia not so much. Merangs (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I mean, I speak English but I might. Fair enough. Deutschland1871 (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Intonation and Antiquity. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Merangs, just wanted to let you know I've closed the CCI. I really appreciate you taking it upon yourself to remove the rest of the issues from the last few remaining articles. Cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: - So sorry for all the trouble it caused. I was not aware of the CCI Inv. until recent. Merangs (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It's all good, a lot of people make these kinds of mistakes - you're not the first, won't be the last. Thanks for being cool about it, happy editing! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis XV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duchy of Tuscany.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish złoty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulden.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Dziękuję. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sca: - Nie ma za co. :) Merangs (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Alas, I know only a few words and phrases of Polish, from when I lived in Warsaw in the mid-'90s. Things were still quite grim then. – Sca (talk)

PS: My favorite Joseph Conrad tale is Typhoon. – Sca (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sca: - Sadly, I am not old enough to remember those "dark" times of transition. As for the novel, my favourite must be George Orwell's dystopian epic Nineteen Eighty-Four. Also, thank you for your edit on Olecko! I am currently engaged in writing an article about John I Albert, King of Poland, at User:Merangs/sandbox. If you ever find spare time, please feel free to suggest any changes or even contribute. I am hoping to upgrade the finished article to a GA status. Merangs (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

← Speaking of dark times, I took this pic. in January 1997. – Sca (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, May I ask why did you revert my change of the info box it was in my opinion a much better image. It wasn’t cropped and from a more famous artist. And gives viewers a much better image of what the king wore every day. Have a nice day! Orson12345 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it would possible to change the posthumous portrait of Sigismund used in the article and replace with the portrait by Rubens Orson12345 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, neither the current nor the second choice were good enough; Rubens' depiction is not entirely accurate (most likely Sigismund didn't sit for the painting). However, I agree that the previous cropped image could be replaced. I personally favour the one attached here by Joseph Heintz the Elder, though I was unable to find any coloured-version of it anywhere. Also, posthumous portraits should not be used in the infobox. Merangs (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. For now do you think I should replace the posthumous portrait used in the article for the portrait by Rubens since it’s a contemporary portrait of Sigismund. Orson12345 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The one by Bacciarelli Orson12345 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the Rubens' version should be discarded. Perhaps there are other selections? Merangs (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok I’ll do some research and see what I can find. Orson12345 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Apparently I've "vandalised" for stating the official figures. Look at the article's edit history and point out where I've vandalised the article, you can't even do that. Also, check this source out, its from the UNDP: [7] - it clearly states "Russian Federation’s HDI value for 2019 is 0.824— which put the country in the very high human development category—positioning it at 52 out of 189 countries and territories." Exactly what I stated in the article's lead. There's no point in arguing for petty issues such as these. Mspriz (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mspriz: - No need for a "very high". Sounds like Wikipedia:Wikipuffery which is against Wikipedia policy. Best to represent it in stats or ranking against other nations. Considering that the version before your edits has been longstanding I suggest you seek an RFC on Russia talk page. Or perhaps remove the passage entirely. Well done on expanding the article though. Merangs (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Merangs: This article isn't the first article I have seen on Wikipedia, that has the usage of "very high" while mentioning the HDI of a country, its very common actually. The latter is used on Hungary, Argentina, Serbia, Chile etc. and the list could go on. There's a ton of them. This can also be used backwards, such as in the case of Nigeria—where its stated the country has "very low" human development.

@Mspriz: - It shouldn't and would normally be removed from the lead of countries. It's just too broad, exaggerated and not always accurate in its entirety. 64th position of Serbia is not "very high" at all. It's a matter of criteria set by the HDI, where any country with an index above 0.800 is described as such. I shall remove it there as well. Merangs (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

About time, as far as I can see, the HDI in Russia's lead was represented with "very high" as back as August 2021, originally there since a long time. And then it got changed, with the exact positioning. And then I changed it back, and now it got changed again. I am not trying to start an edit-war here for a such a small issue. And about the RFC option, the article's talk page is dead. Quite literally, people barely respond to anything in there, from requests to discussion. Talk pages aren't supposed to be like that, and are usually pretty vibrant.

Yes, but you have added it. It just sounds less professional and accurate, and looking at your contributions to the Russia page I presume you are attempting to improve the quality of the article. One can say "is ranked highly (52nd)" rather than blatantly "very high". Merangs (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello,
Reverting the whole edit of mine is an atrocity. The previous version of the article was full of errors, with the biggest one being the mention of Bydgoszcz located between Kuyavia and Pomerania, which is not true. Same with the updated information about the urban complex, several years ago Bydgoszcz has formed an organisation Stowarzyszenie Metropolia Bydgoszcz, similarily to Poznań, to focus on its efforts to strengthen its relationships with smaller cities around -- now it's all gone. The same goes for the information about the Politechnika Bydgoska, which the Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Przyrodniczy transformed into last year. I do agree that the introduction was somewhat long, but, if need be, it could have been shortened and not reverted completely. And seriously, giving precise information about it being a capital of each voivodeship in the Polish People's Republic for a few years (like Pomeranian in 1945-1947) is way more important than international NATO headquarters or the roots of the city growth in the 19th century? I don't understand how you referred to the collage as "outdated", because every picture is up to date except for the last one at the Brda river, simply because no nice picture has been taken lately. The old granaries -- undoubtedly the most important and most-known building in the city as well as its symbol -- in the previous collage, the one you restored and the one that was made nine years ago, are nowhere to be found. Neither do I find my collage too big; it features nine pictures and so do collages of Toruń or Warsaw, and the size is not bigger than collages of Dresden or Oslo. Besides, calling a Top 10 city in Poland, Top 100 in the EU, bigger than Malmö or Bilbao, "small" is a pure nonesense and I am utterly disappointed to read that from an experienced Wikipedian, let alone an urban development graduate. Please explain.
Kind regards, Ciastkoo (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ciastkoo: - I don't see any of this information necessary in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, regardless of whether Bydgoszcz is considered moderately large or small city. The current information and its length is sufficient. Secondly, I have read and studied some sources which consider Bydgoszcz both Kuyavia and Pomerania regions; I do not doubt your claim, but either way sources need to be added to verify that. For now, I removed the passage for neutrality. In terms of the collage, it was too large and the pictures not well selected (both collages are outdated in fact, with the previous one being more professional and harmonious). I will review your edit as I have assumed Good Faith and will reincorporate the vital information to the body of the article that you have added, excluding the collage and history part. Merangs (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I know that you some time ago you change the original reference from Christianity to Western Christianity, however this is not the correct use of such a term. Western Christianity is a not a religion and not even a denomination, like Catholics, Baptist or Lutherans, it's a term which geographically categorizes Christian denominations. So, you could say, "converted to Christianity" or "converted to Lutheranism" but no one converts to "Western Christianity", the term is not used in this instance. No one says "I'm a Western Christian". --E-960 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@E-960: - It is a matter of words. One could say "adopted Western Christianity". I do not see the point of removing 'Western' as Christianity is too broad and we wouldn't like to be interpreted as Byzantine. For clarity and comprehension, we could replace the term "Latin" with "Western Church". Merangs (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

We do already have this, we note that: "accepted Christianity as the rightful religion under the auspices of the Latin Church". This states it nicely, religion is Christianity and the authority is the Latin Church in Rome. --E-960 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to ask why did you undo my edit about Poland's Demographics (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poland&oldid=1075486657). According to your comment it was "Not an improvement, extremely repetitive". Can you clarify which portion is repetitive? I based my entry on similar demographic summaries on wikipages for other countries.

Also, how is this not an improvement over the previous version, which:

• Incorrectly lists Polish TFR at 1.44 using a website called "Macro Trends", while my version used (and cited) data directly from the Polish statistical office. It also incorrectly editorializes this TFR as "a considerable rise from previous years" while in fact, TFR fell in Poland in 2020, just like in most countries
• Compares modern fertility to that from almost 100 years ago. Why specifically year 1925? My version placed it in much more sensible context: noting when the TFR fell below replacement level, as well as when it was the lowest recorded (given it was relatively recently, 19 years ago)
• Claims that "Around 60% of Poles and Polish citizens reside in urban areas or major cities and 40% in more rural zones" -- this is simply misleading. Polish statistical office only reports urbanization rate, which is indeed around 60%, but which includes towns in more rural "zones" (should be areas, not zones; zone has a specific meaning in English) while not including places like Raszyn just outside of Warsaw, which are administratively villages even though they are located in urban areas.
• Brings no value to the reader through the section about most- and least-populous regions. I checked a few other wiki pages on countries for benchmark and none of them has it. Most of them list major metro areas, though, which I added because the current version only lists Warsaw metro area and then Katowice conurbation (why single out this conurbation?). It also mixes the statistical methodology (metro area) with urban studies methodology (conurbation). Additionally, in the version you restored, all the data cited is from 15-20 years ago, and is imprecise. In the citations I provided, all the data is from 2019-2021 period.
• Does not disclose the important information that in the 2011 census people were allowed to declare more than 1 nationality/ethnicity. Without it, the data provided in the article looks dubious because it sums up to 39.2 million - more than the census reported in total
• Cites the verifiably untrue figure of 1.7 million Ukrainian workers, and my edit exactly aimed to clear up that misunderstanding. The figure the journalist refers to are all "a declaration on entrusting work to a foreigner" which: A) can be filed multiple times for a single worker, and even by multiple employers but the worker can only enter once for up to 6 months, and B) does not mean the foreigner took up the job in Poland, and actually that is extremely common (80% don't, according to the Polish Comptroller: https://www.nik.gov.pl/aktualnosci/nik-o-zatrudnianiu-cudzoziemcow-na-podkarpaciu.html).
• Claims that Karta Polaka recipients are included in official population figures, and refers to a source which does not confirm it (hint: it depends in what capacity Karta Polaka recipients are in Poland; only students would be included in official population figures).

Overall, thanks for implementing some of my edits in the most recent version but I think overall that section still is not great. In summary, it provides wrong or misleading data, the data is outdated, hard to understand why some things are highlighted (e.g. least/most-populous regions, most-populous conurbation) while some are not (e.g. major metro areas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szyymek (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Szyymek:. Thank you for your contributions and clarifications. The content you added was well done. The point is that we aim to trim the article and not add more and more content. I agree the current section isn't perfect, but certain information that you've added can be described as trivial or too broad. The point is to create summaries in an encyclopaedic tone. I found the life expectancy repetitive (already in Health section), and also the minorities, which were (aren't anymore) in the Languages section. It is true that all stats pre-2018 e.g. 1925 should indeed be removed. Do you think you can rewrite it and fit in three relatively short paragraphs? We should also eliminate listing all the minority groups by numbers and percentages as these estimates are not fully credible. We could alternatively keep the sentence about how many migrants received work permits. Merangs (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Popular election.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oli. Mind if we exchange e-mail contacts? I would like to ask you for some advice. NeonFor (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@NeonFor: - Hi hi. When you click on my username link and go to my homepage you will see a "Tools" bar to the left and just click "Email this user". It will go directly to my email :). Merangs (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The history section of the article is way too huge. It needs a massive trim, and more use of summary style. The history section takes up most of the article's size, and is a big obstacle to the GA nomination. Thesickreservoir (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thesickreservoir: - I'll attempt to trim the history part today. Thank you so much for your contribution. Merangs (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The healthcare section needs to be reformed. Its possibly the worst sourced section in the article. It uses a blog as a source. Thesickreservoir (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The part about the hospitals can be cut entirely. I will deal with the whole article shortly; I am currently focused on the history section. Merangs (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is in a much better shape than before. The culture section is well-written, but very large. To reduce its size, the art section could be merged with the architecture section, and the media section with the cinema section. However, after merged, they would need to be trimmed. As done in many GA and FA class articles. The literature section could also get another trim.

But you are right, the economy section needs a re-write. I tried to trim off the second para of the heading, as it was mostly very old data. The Transport and energy section is mostly backed by old sources - and the Tourism section needs a reliable sentence listing the country's most popular tourist areas. The second para of the section is entirely unsourced. Thesickreservoir (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to it today. Thank you for your comments. Merangs (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Merangs, I don't really have an issue with the image in the Religion section, however I think we are starting to over do it with the double image thumbs in the article, I just don't want that to become a thing in the Poland article, where everyone starts to insert extra images using this method. --E-960 (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, alright. Also, is there a quality image of John Paul II that can be horizontal and would correspond to the image above it i.e. the Polish-Kashubian bilingual sign in the Languages section? I checked other articles such as Japan and most images there follow a pattern. Merangs (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Legacy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

In order to overcome the inconvenience, I suggest you express your views on this topic in order to combine the status quo. First I will express my thoughts. As I wrote earlier, the village of Kreva is now in Belarus. This union is the beginning of the rapprochement of the GDL and the Kingdom of Poland, which later led to the union in Lublin, which had a great influence on the history of Belarus.

The Lublin Union is one of the main events not only in Polish but also in Belarusian history. I believe that the names of the unions should be written in Belarusian as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd suggest you begin discussing edits and not engaging in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Whilst, what we now consider Belarus and Ukraine were then part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, I do not see how adding loose translations of such acts is beneficial in any way. Poland–Lithuania was a multi-ethnic state, and you can argue that such a union was important to its minorities. This would entail adding other translations such as Ukrainian, Ruthenian, German, Yiddish etc. I believe Polish and Lithuanian are sufficient as it was the union between the two, and don't see how it impacted Belarus as an entity (i.e. did it make Belarus independent and so on). Merangs (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice.

Back to our topic.The Ruthenian language (Old Belarusian and old Ukrainian) was the state language of the GDL and ancestors of Belarusians were the main part of the GDL population after the Lublin Union and the territory of modern Belarus occupied almost 80% of the GDL territory after 1569. Here is the map

.

I think that it is impossible to say that all the heritage of the GDL belongs to only modern Lithuanians, firstly because there were no nations in the Middle Ages and secondly because most of the GDL culture was created by the ancestors of modern Belarusians. Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how this still corresponds to Belarus as an entity. I think it'd be more appropriate to place Ruthenian. Can you seek an RfC? Merangs (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Belarusians as a nation (as well as modern Lithuanians) were formed within the GDL which at that time was part of the Commonwealth.

In the Middle Ages, the term "Lithuanians" did not refer only to the inhabitants of Samogitia and Aukštaitija. This term applied to all residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and after the union they were the ancestors of modern Belarusians and modern Lithuanians. Therefore, I think that there should also be a Belarusian name. Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Bit POV. Belarusian wasn't formed as a language that early and Ruthenian is more inclusive. Please seek RfC. Merangs (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the modern Lithuanian language was not formed so early too. In general, the alphabet for it appeared only in the 17th century. But you think that the name in modern Lithuanian should be written in this article. Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

In all honesty I think Litwinist - AntiLukashist makes some valid points. Old Belarusian was the main language of the GDL, and later one of the official languages of PLC. There is no reason to exclude it Marcelus (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that it was the official language of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from what I've read. Ruthenian was official until the end of the 17th century. Merangs (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

What you call Ruthenian is also called Old Belarusian, to qoute Bogdan Walczak: Thus, when the grand ducal chancellery was finally formed (at the court of Olgierd), Ruthenian was adopted as its language (functionally in the chancellery variant, and due to its territorial origins, it is best described as Old Belarusian) (link). There is no reason to remove Belarusian names from the biographies of important figures of GDL history.Marcelus (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and again we are talking about a similar topic. Stefan Batory was neither a Pole nor a Belarusian nor a Lithuanian but he was the King of the Commonwealth, King of Poland and the Prince of the GDL, as I wrote to you earlier the legacy of the GDL does not belong exclusively to modern Lithuanians, it also belongs to Belarusians; Moreover, Stefan Batory used Hrodna in Belarus as his residence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk • contribs) 12:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

His residence in what is now Belarus does not justify placing a Belarusian translation of his name in English Wikipedia. There is no mention of the term "Belarus" in Bathory's titles. I do understand the cultural and historical background that supports your claim, but then we would be including not only Belarusian but other languages as well and that would make the lead section untidy (overflow). The PLC stretched over many borders, not only those of contemporary Belarus. Merangs (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You use only modern place names, but if use historical and medieval place names, it becomes clear that the lands of modern Belarus were called Lithuania or GDL in Latin (Magnus Ducatus Lituaniae) and the lands of modern Lithuania (Lietuva) were called Samogitia.

As on the map I sent earlier.

According to this in the title of Bathory (By the grace of God and the will of the people, the King of Poland, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Rus (Ukraine) or Ruthenia in Latin, Prussia, Mazovia, Samogitia, Podlasie, Inflants, Smolensk, Seversky, Chernihiv and others, and others) there is no word "Belarus" because instead there is "the Grand Duke of Lithuania" and there is the word "Samogitia" which means modern Lithuania (Lietuva). Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if You want to see an "RfC", then firstly,please, explain how to create and spread it. Litwinist - AntiLukashist (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see Template:Rfc and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Merangs (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Łódź, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abolition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Well of course no Slavic ethnic group is "entirely" of Slavic descent. But then by that token we should change all the other Slavic ethnic groups (i.e. Russians, Czechs, Ukrainians, etc.) to say that they are "predominantly of West Slavic/East Slavic/South Slavic descent" too. Every country, Slavic ones included, has minorities, but overall the population consists mostly of Slavs. Do you see where I'm coming from? I just think the reversion of my edit was a bit unnecessary when all the Wikipedia pages for other Slavic ethnic groups say that they are "an East/West/South Slavic ethnic group". How are the Poles any different? FrozenIcicle (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Very well. I hesitate to add such things due to the past multicultural composition of Poland's population. Merangs (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I get it but isn't the article about ethnic Poles? I.e. those who are of entirely West Slavic descent? The same way all the other Slavic ethnic group Wikipedia pages are about those only of Slavic descent? FrozenIcicle (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Łódź, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Residential zone.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Cześć, mam nadzieję, że to nie problem, jeśli piszę po Polsku. Zauważyłem, że pewien Wikipedysta o nazwie Zubryckiy bardzo silnie usiłuje zmienić historię niektórych artykułów, na taką, aby pasowała jego poglądowi historycznemu. Piszę akurat do Ciebie, bo zauważyłem, że już interweniowałeś w tej sprawie na jego stronie dyskusji. Zubryckiy zmienia polsko-brzmiące nazwy w artykule Stefan Kunicki, a także nazwę samego artykułu (choć to już poprawiłem). Zmienił też nazwę artykułowi Elena Kunitskaya na Olena Kunytska, pomimo tego, że w oficjalnych dokumentach historycznych była zapisana w ten pierwszy sposób. Nie mam uprawnień do tego, aby cofnąć ten precedens, ale pomyślałem, że może byś mi w tym pomógł. Pozdrawiam serdecznie i życzę miłego dnia. Guccee (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Cześć, piszę ponownie, dlaczego usunąłeś moje edycje ze strony Stefan Kunicki? Guccee (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Witaj. Nie rozumiem tych zmian. Kunicki to Rusin który należał do szlachty polskiej i był wówczas (w pewnym sensie) poddanym króla polskiego. Aczkolwiek, nie ma powodów by go utożsamiać z Polską tylko z Zaporożem/Kozakami i historią Ukrainy. Podobnie jak z Chmielnickim. Dodałem również polskie tłumaczenie jego nazwiska. To prawda że użytkownik Zubryckiy powinien się radzić innych oraz rozpocząć dyskusję w takich sprawach. Merangs (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Kunicki był nobilitowany przez polskiego króla, to wydarzenie czyni go jedynie polskim szlachcicem. Tak też napisałem przy pierwszej edycji.

Dodatkowo usunąłeś zapisaną przeze mnie, poprawną nazwę omawianej postaci, czyli Stefan Kunicki i zamieniłeś ją z powrotem na Stefan Kunytskyi, choć w przytoczonych przez Wagnera dokumentach historycznych był zapisywany dosłownie w sposób Stefan Kunicki. Mało tego, sporządzony jeszcze za życia Stefana obraz, który widnieje na jego angielskiej Wikipedii, również ma taki zapis: [8]. Jedynie imiona są zmodyfikowane.

Jeśli już mówimy o jego tożsamości to raczej spoglądałbym w stronę samej Rzeczypospolitej, a żadnemu krajowi nie jest tak blisko RP jak obecnej Polsce. Wtedy nawet nie było mowy o Ukrainie jako państwie, więc Ukraińcem również nie należy go nazywać. Zapisałeś go jako Rusina i rzeczywiście mógłby być to dobry pomysł, ale za jego życia Ruś to już nie państwowość, a przynależność geograficzna. Dlatego wydaje mi się, że najbardziej zgodny z historią opis, będący jednocześnie neutralny - was a Polish noble and hetman of Right-bank Ukraine. Guccee (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Polacy rozumieją że szlachta była wówczas wielonarodowa i wieloetniczna. Anglojęzyczni użytkownicy i czytelnicy nie bardzo. Jeśli nazwisko Kunicki jest częściej spotykane w historiografii to niech pozostanie ta pisownia, jednak określenie "Polish nobleman" nie jest stosowne ani w pełni poprawne. Tym bardziej że istnieli wtedy Rusini i podmiot taki jak Sicz Zaporoska. Właściwym wyjściem byłoby "was a Ruthenian nobleman and hetman of Right-bank Ukraine. He was also ennobled by the King of Poland and joined the circles of Polish nobility". Albo krócej "was a Ruthenian military commander and hetman of Right-bank Ukraine. He was also a member of the Polish nobility." Merangs (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

W porządku, jest to niezły kompromis, choć wydaje mi się, że nadaje to troche za silny nacisk na Ruś, która za jego życia nie odegrała tak wielkiej roli. Jeśli kiedykolwiek będziesz potrzebował pomocy w heraldyce (herbach, szlachcie, genealogii itd.) to służę pomocą. Obecnie jestem jedyną osobą na polskiej Wiki, która się zajmuje tymi tematami. Guccee (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Dziękuję za ofertę i za Twój wkład na Wikipedii! Merangs (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Również bardzo dziękuję. Guccee (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand why you reverted the citation and changes I made to the bagel History Article. I used a written source and cited clearly? Why go back to missing citationALLNP (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you please link the revert action. I do not recall this. Merangs (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I am working on the Graudenz page the CESS contest.

Your editing comment was "something isn't right here". That provides no context or reason for the undos. From reading your talk page, you have a bad habit of reverting people's work without leaving a ration explanation as to why. This is unprofessional and wastes the time of volunteers.

You didn't deleted the uncited population data but you did delete the link to gord (archeology) Wiki article (fixed) -- completly baffling!

Adding Baltic to Prussia makes the sentence redundant. It's similar to saying chai tea. "Baltic Prussians" are simply known as Prussians (see: Old Prussians article on Wiki).

If not Baltic then preferably Old Prussians would be a much better alternative. Merangs (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

In the future, please refrain from delete sourced data. It is your job to make sure you are not deleting sourced information that has been moved around. I had to go back and undelete facts that I had placed in the introcution because they did not fit in the article while I was editing it. Now that I have edited it, I have found a place for the fact. Why did you not take the time to reoganize the data? Instead you just deleted it.

I have read your talk page and it seems like this is a habit of yours. Please be more considerate and reach out on the talk page instead of writing "something seems wrong here". That is not a good summary as it does not explain anything to anyone. TheTypingKat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheTypingKat: - Firstly, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. The revert was based on the quality of the content and not the volume. There were countless typos and problems that I encountered and the lead section was not alright. That of course is from a personal perspective. Hence, I assumed bad faith which I encountered on such pages before and proceeded with immediate revert (a "habit" of many other users as well who contribute to Wikipedia:Good articles). I also agree that an elaborate edit summary could have helped. However, I do not see how all of your contributions were removed? I'd like to also mention that the placename is Grudziądz or Grudziadz without the Polish accent, not Graudenz. Per Talk:Gdańsk/Vote, one writes Graudenz in the history section when the settlement was under German or Prussian rule.

Moreover, stating "help reporting Merangs who is mass deleting and reverting articles" to user Deutschland1871 is unacceptable. German translation and audio were already placed in the Poznań note template as explained, but I have made them more visible now because apparently this is an issue. Nonetheless, I will raise administrator attention if such conduct (ganging up) persists. Merangs (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

After you deleted my changes to the Graudenz article, I went to your talk page and notice that you have deleted and reverted several pages. When people post to your talk page, you take no accountability or action in working together to fix the problems.

For this reason, I am suggesting you read the following articles:

- Revert only when necessary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary

- Reverting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting - including the subheadings: When to Revert, Partial Reversions, Explain Reverts and Edit wars are harmful

- Alternatives to Reversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternatives_to_reversion

- Baby and bathwater (this is what you did to the Graudenz article - you deleted cited facts for no reason instead of moving them to the appropriate heading) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Baby_and_bathwater

REVERTING DRIVES AWAY EDITORS! This is a community endevor and reversions are for vandalism and disruptive edits only!

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TheTypingKat (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many sources describing the Polish and wider Slavic tradition of korowaj in the kolach (bread) article, more than enough to justify my recent contributions to korovai, however it is my bad for not copying those sources over so your reverts are very much reasonable. I think what is happening here is symptomatic of a wider problem we have on Wikipedia wherein several pages with different names are made, but they deal with more or less the same subject material (e.g. in this case kolach (bread), korovai, Slavski kolač, up until reently kołacz, as well as even earlier kalács, and colaci). I guess a case can be made for keeping Slavski kolač a separate article, due to its distinct use for a different occasion and South Slavic origin as opposed to the North Slavic variants used for weddings. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add that korowaj and kołacz are not traditions limited to Ukrainians in Poland, but older and relatively well-documented customs that date back to times before we can speak of Poles and Ukrainians as we understand these nations in the contemporary sense. However, just like most folk traditions in the world in general, they're mostly limited to rural areas (particularly central and eastern Poland, it appears, as those regions did not experience as much migration of peoples as west Poland). Again, I have illustrated this through numerous sources in the kolach article. I would have responded earlier, but you left this comment at the kvass talk page - which I am steering clear of as per recommendations made by another user given the recent drama between someone else and myself. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

What I am attempting to say is that korovai is not widely made across Poland, whether rural or urban. It is, to a degree, unknown by name in most circles. It might have been a wedding bread of the Slavs that settled in what was to become Poland, however, this bread is not associated in Poland or its tradition at present. We can assume that the Kolach is the Polish alternative (and not only Polish) of a korovai, which is associated with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Bulgaria under this name. I know that the Orthodox minorities in eastern Poland practice this (and some Catholics too as well as repatriates from the Kresy), but this is largely exclusive to eastern Poland. As the article suggests, the baked good originated (possibly) in the Kievan Rus which geographically makes sense. Also, one cannot grant nationality to a bread. One can describe it as a bread made widely by the Slavs centuries ago, but not "Polish bread". It has a much deeper cultural meaning behind our eastern border and not in Poland, at least not anymore. What about its presence in Czechia, Slovakia etc.? It'd be more accurate to state "is a bread most associated with Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria and their diasporas. It is also made in... An alternative of the korovai in some countries such as.... is the kolach." I'd keep the kolach and the korovai as separate articles because of the name itself. Merangs (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Merangs. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3