User talk:Piotr Mikołajski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] List of empty redirects
[edit] WWII era ships
- HMS Jastrzab
- ORP Jastrzab
- ORP JastrzÄ…b
[edit] WWII era planes
- PZL P7
- PZL P.7a
- PZL-19
- PZL 23
- PZL P.23 Karas
- PZL 37
- PZL-37 Los
- PZL P.37B
- PZL-38 Wilk
- PZL-43 Karas
- PZL-46 Sum
- PZL P.46
- PZL P-50 Jastrzab
- Focke-Wulf 200
[edit] Post-WWII era planes
- PZL Iskra
- PZL W-3A SOKOL
[edit] Thank you for your Poland-related contributions
|
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE:Hel
Thank you, I did not notice those other two articles. capitulation is simply another way of saying victory for one side. As you have probably noticed, there are many nationalistic editors here on wikipedia, and some have tried to make it seem like somehow Poland wasn't conquered, and had won the "Polish Defensive War". I was simply changing the article box to the standard commonly used, either "victory" or "defeat".
--Jadger 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- capitulation means that they were defeated and surrendered because they had no other choice really, as they couldn't retreat. I fail to see how the results can be described as anything but a Polish defeat, as they where overwhelmed and surrendered.
- --Jadger 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I cannot understand what you just said. could you please rephrase it. we are not talking about Courland here, we are talking about the battle of Hel. the Germans assaulted the position and the garrison capitulated (surrendered) I fail to see how this was not a German victory.
--Jadger 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- how is capitulation any different than defeat? sometimes there are pyhric victories, but we are not referring to one here.
- --Jadger 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] UH-1N
THanks SO much for your work on the new UH-1N Twin Huey page. You are fast! I was planning on asking you to format the Operators list for me anyway! ANd thanks for adding the pics. I spent some time on it last night, but I must not have saved the final version. You saved me alot of do-over work. Thanks again! - BillCJ 19:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bell 204/205
Thanks for finding the new Bell 204/205 article. You ARE fast, as you're finding these soon after create the pages! One think I want to be sure about: Are the operators you've listed military or civil users? This page primarily covers non-military usage of the 204 and 205, while military usage is still on the UH-1 Iroquois page. I realize the difference is in some ways superficial, as some militaries actually bought the civil versions from Bell or Agusta. In addtions, many ex-military models are used in the civilain world today. At least that's what I had in mind in creating the page. The civil usage of the 204 and 205 was hardly mentioned at all on the UH-1 page, which covered mostly military history and usage. So instead of adding more info to the already-very long UH-1 page, I decided on a new one for the civil models. But, if this doesn't work, I'm OK with changing it too. Anyway, thanks for the good work on those Operators lists! - BillCJ 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good idea about adding a header about the military and civil versions at the top; I'll see what I can come up with. THanks for working on the civil operators list - it's awesome! I was surprised with how long it is already! Good work! - BillCJ 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Operators sources
I don't know how what your sources for your lists are, but especially if you are using just a few primary sources, it might be good to note them under the "Operators" heading. We did have some problems with users removing and adding operators on the AH-1 Cobra, with no idea what the sources where. (I don't know who added the ones we had problems with). If you do have one or two major sources you use, if you could list them, it would be very helpful. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiwings Award
 |
Wikiwings | |
| For making sure that we have all the correct operators for each aircraft!! --Born2flie 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] MiG-21 edit
Piotr, by removing the past operators of the aircraft as you have done, we loose some valuable historical information. It's not just important who is operating the aircraft today, but who has operated it in the past, as well. Can I get you to reconsider? Akradecki 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies...I should have scrolled down and looked closer. The diff as displayed in Netscape can sometimes be deceiving! Akradecki 15:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- While we're on the subject of the MiG-21, I have on my to-do list an article about an Indian MiG-21 crash, and in my research I've found that the IAF has an especially bad safety record with the MiG-21. I've been debating whether to put a one-paragraph summary of the problem, with refs, into the MiG article, but I'm not sure if it should go under the India section of Operation History, or in a seperate "Notable accidents and incidents" section, which some articles have. Thoughts? Akradecki 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] JAS 39 Gripen
Just noticed this does not have an operators list. It would be small, but take your time. - BillCJ 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beechcraft King Air
On another subject, I just split the Beechcraft King Air article by creating a Beechcraft Super King Air page. I copied the operators list whole, as it did not indicate which models were in service. It's a long list, so it may take awhile to do. If you would be able to do it, it would be appreciated, but again, I'm in no hurry on this one, and it's OK if you cannot do it. Thanks. - BillCJ 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citing sources
Please, don't cite websites which allow user contributions - generally, they don't comply with WP:RS, unless you are talking about the site itself. Wikisource isn't reliable for discussing spitfires.Garrie 02:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, yes the list of article was where I saw the link to Wikisource. When I see issues like that on articles which have only been worked on by one person (excluding tagging / categories etc), I'd rather make sure they are aware of the relevant policies than go fixing ariticles. I have been going through Wikipedia:New articles (Australia), and from putting comments on user pages for people who show up there I've gotten articles improved far more than if I had just fixed what I saw, when I saw it. Because generally, I don't know anything about the subject - I just know what's wrong stylistically / mechanically with the article. And hopefully - once I've pointed an issue out to someone (like, don't link to myspace in the external links section because it's in breach of WP:EL) - they won't do it in the future either.
Thanks for removing the reference to Wikisource. Sorry for being too tangential - I'm sure you work on quite a few articles. Garrie 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spad S.VII
I believe I have found a temporary solution to the non-displaying Ukraine flag. M Van Houten 18:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Percival Prince
Apologies over my confusion about Borneo/Brunei, the reference I used had the term Borneo which was probably a British colonial term for Sarawak, Sabah and Brunei.MilborneOne 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] E1 Tracer
Thanks for helping refine the article! I appreciate it. 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Raryel
