User talk:Merangs

Hello. Please motivate your revert of my edits.

• Statement such as "from 1871 it was a part of Germany" are plainly misleading hence biased because they identify Germany with unified Germany from 1871 only. However, Germany existed, as a collection of states since the 10th century of course. Please explain your revert here!

Then let's add "from 1871 it was a part of the German Empire" for better clarification. Merangs (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

• The statement again part of Poland in regions of Western Pomerania, Lubuz Voivoidship, and Silesia, without further context is biased. Claiming land based on 600 years old history, and now settled by another people is historic propaganda. Also, identifying modern Poland with the state of the Piasts is not correct, it is anachronistic, projecting modern ideas to past times. Maybe, as a compromise, we could choose After Polish rule at the times of the Piast dynasty, it was thus reestablished as part of Communist Poland. Maybe you have noted that I am NOT proposing such edits for the regions that were taken by Prussia and Germany during the Polish Partitions. Please discuss! Tino Cannst (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

With respect, I semi-understand where you are coming from with the above argument, however, by stating that it became "again a part of Poland" is not fully incorrect if these regions were once part of Poland even hundreds of years ago, but it is something that can be discussed, especially for these bordering regions. What I am more rejecting is the content you add or modify, for example changing Holy Roman Empire to the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" which is completely unnecessary for English-language Wikipedia and adding "communist Poland" wherever possible, as if the Polish People's Republic had anything to decide about its post-war frontiers. Also, you add the terms "claiming", "supposedly" and "allegedly", questioning Polish administration (no matter if now or hundreds of years ago) and rejecting sources or replacing them with German ones. There is some serious POV, bias, and perhaps hidden ideology behind these edits that I do not find neutral. Merangs (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You reverted my edit to the etymology section in the article about Warsaw 29 August 2023. Could we please discuss it? What Wikipedia rules did my edit violate? I did provide a source and I think my edit was accurately worded and based on an academic research by a Polish linguist. It might be useful for readers. Your comment for the revert said the information was not constructive and had no source. Denghu (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your message. May I know the source you provided? I do not see it in the edit history. It is possible to make a bad assumption, especially when seeing a newly-added sentence with a phrase "one theory or another theory states" and no reference to support it. Merangs (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have to say the Gdańsk vote perhaps is an outdated and questionable rule that may need to be revisited. I don't see similar "rules" for Belarus, Ukraine or any other country's city/location in other articles, where such a rule is being push around. At the most at the top of the article, you have other city names in parentheses and that's it. See Vilnius, Helsinki, Lviv, etc. It's just this POV-ish chauvinistic mentality exhibited by some around anything remotely connected to Germany. --E-960 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Merangs! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Sweden that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Re this. In English, you are right, but the infobox does say "Krai of Russian Empire" and it was Kraj / край. Anyway, see the RM at Talk:Western Krai, and cry with me over the terrible state of Krais of the Russian Empire entry... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see. I feel like every article of a Polish state, entity or polity has three official names in the lead section. Merangs (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John I Albert, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Burgher and Casimir IV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

What was wrong with my changes? Second Polish Republic didn't end on October 6, 1939 and didn't start on Nov 6, 1918. It's proper to inform that the offical name was different Marcelus (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Marcelus: - I think this is a de facto versus a de jure matter, where the latter is much preferred by Wikipedia standards. The 11 of November should stay as the official date as it is widely recognised and a public holiday. Moreover, do you have a source for the 6 of November? I am only aware of the Lublin People's Government being formed then as a prelude to independence. Merangs (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John I Albert 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you please explain what is wrong with the so called "Wikipuffery" I did on the page? Romania is indeed considered an emerging middle power, has the fastest and cheapest fixed internet speeds in the world, and also, it's the happiest country in Eastern Europe, its rank increasing by every report each year.

Look at other pages such as Singapore, South Korea, and also Poland where there is much more "puffery" than Romania. Julian.exe (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Happiness reports (unless highly notable for nations such as Finland), internet speed, and trivial data should not be in the lead section at all. I left the part about it being an emerging middle power; this is sourced and significant considering current events in Europe. Merangs (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, but why South Korea and Singapore have the part with "fastest internet connection speeds" Julian.exe (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article John I Albert you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:John I Albert for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why did you merge SB article (Służba Bezpieczeństwa) into the MBP article (Ministry of Public Security (Poland)) back in the 2020? This were two completely different organisations that didn't even overlap in time. MBP ceased to exist in 1954, SB was created in 1954. I'm literally furious right now. Marcelus (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

They can remain under one article as Bezpieka. The article contains information about both UB and SB. I support a name change of the article, if not then a revert of the move. Moreover, they were not that completely 'different'. Also, kindly keep your feelings to yourself please. Merangs (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well I won't keep my feeling to myself, because you mixed totally different organisation under the name of one of them. This is vandalism. I think I need to check your other edits. Marcelus (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Kindly cite me the vandalism clause then and I will agree. The edit was done in Good Faith, like with my other contributions. I can see your history is much more controversial. Merangs (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I already you explained your vandalism. You on the other hand accuses me without giving any examples. Marcelus (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

A POV claim. Regardless, if you do not agree with the edit feel free to revert or change the name of the article as I do not engage in edit wars or wiki conflicts. Unlike others. Merangs (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please don't engage also in spreading false information. I for example don't do that. Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm doing that. Kartacze have some (but not strong) connection to Podlachia. Sękacz has no connection to Podlachia whatsoever. Both Kartacze and Sękacz are traditional dishes of Suwalszczyzna (Suwałki region/Suvalkija). Using the term "podlachia" to refer to the entire Podlaskie voivodeship is not only untrue, but also harmful to the region. Podlachian section should either be renamed (to Podlaskie or to "Podlachia and Suwałki region") or the reference to Sękacz should be removed from it. LEJ PO ŁYMPIE (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Gonna answer? LEJ PO ŁYMPIE (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I don't know what edit of mine this concerns. I think that before renaming articles you should consult with other users. Merangs (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Рlease explain why you removed the portrait? You wrote: "no such title, is this needed?" - The reason for the removal is not clear. Lanamy (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is enough pictures as it is. Moreover, your previous caption "King of Ukraine" is not very factual. Merangs (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you know how to get rid of the ISO 3166 code in the Civitas Schinesghe infobox? E-960 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@E-960: - Done. All I did was remove "common_name" input as it is used for contemporary states/entities and I added the term "former" into the template name at the top. Merangs (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nice, many thanks! --E-960 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@E-960: - No problem! Merangs (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was curious as to your reasoning for only including alternate city names, specifically with regard to Thorn and Bromberg, in the footnotes alone. When viewing other similar city such a precedent appears to be absent and any alternate names are displayed in the first line alongside the most common name. Is there a precedent towards this formatting that dictates that this is the optimal method? Ben Unis (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure, I did not add the footnotes nor do I fully endorse it but placing the same information outside of them is simply redundant. Merangs (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gents, this is starting to look like a slow burn edit war. Please leave the article alone and take the discussion to the talk page. See WP:EDITWAR. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just wanted to say thank you for your more recent edits at kutia. This is much more constructive than deleting the entire section. I appreciate that you have reconsidered that and instead took time to edit it with valuable changes/additions. Cheers and have a good one!
--Pitsarotta (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Salutations. I've noticed you've deleted the picture of the granaries on the Brda river in Bydgoszcz with the comment that it's "too large". Care to explain further? As a person who uploaded the pic, I can change the resolution if that's what's you'd like. But deleting the most symbolic place of the city from the collage and calling it a day makes little sense. Greets, Ciastkoo (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi hi, can we make the collage smaller? The image of the River Brda and the granaries is really important but not sure about the quality and size. Merangs (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why is the wording "not the best?"

The partitions of Poland was a genocide of the country by it's German and Russian neighbors. 91.217.105.54 (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. May I ask if you are aware what the term 'genocide' means in English? The partitions comprised stricte political maneuvering to destroy an entity or occupy it. The term genocide cannot be directly applied or is not the most suitable word to describe the partitions as a whole. Merangs (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

So it's in the footnotes. So what? Why hide it down there? It needs to be in the lead paragraph for modern-day readers who out of ignorance may assume, as previously said, that "Stettin" was simply the German version of Szczecin. In fact, as I'm sure you are well aware, Stettin was the name of the town before 1945. That's fairly recent history – within living memory. Furthermore, the Polish and former German names are pronounced very differently!

What's wrong with historical transparency right up front? Afraid to admit that the place was annexed from Germany (at Stalin's behest), even though it's west of the Oder?

Everyone knows that Germany was the unimaginably horrific aggressor in WWII, but that's not the point. The point is that after the war was over, civilians were forcibly removed from their hometown. Absolutely no one today is talking about present-day Germany trying to get the place back. What are you afraid of? History?

Do widzenia. – Sca (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: - Firstly, I understand where you are coming from but this information should be placed elsewhere. Secondly, the semi-aggressive tone you used above is not acceptable, especially the redundant questions. The history is obvious, it's there throughout the article. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the very first paragraph should comprise the most essential information useful for the present-day location (e.g. name(s), population, current location, province). Also, as stated by the clause, "the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view". Please direct me to a city article that could justify your edit. For example, do you see similar content in the first paragraph at Lviv stating that it was a part of Poland for centuries? Historical facts should go to subsequent sections. Merangs (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a real issue. It's not made less so by other eastern Europe articles. But whatever. Część! -- Sca (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your change to the lede lengthened it. Please explain your reasoning which compels you to remove the mention of the Polish-Soviet war from the lede. Also please explain why you think you have ownership over the lede. Meellk (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Meellk: - Firstly, your edit summaries (i.e. to please User Merangs etc.) are unacceptable, and so is the Wikipedia:Edit warring. Secondly, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section is a summary. The term "various conflicts of the interbellum" summarises the number of ideological/territorial disputes for Poland following its independence, including the Polish-Soviet War. By reverting my edit, you are limiting the importance of other conflicts for this period. Are any other conflicts mentioned in the lead section, except for the most recent (World War II and Cold War)? Your interpretation of me "removing" the Polish-Soviet War is false, because I have provided a link to all of those regional wars for the Second Polish Republic. Regarding your last query or issue, I take ownership of a well-written summary that was long-standing and changed little. I have done so for the last decade. I am open to constructive changes and if anything needs to change then the talk page is the place for discussion. Personally, I believe that mentioning this war directly will place an emphasis on the term "Soviet" in the article's lead and would overpower it over other key mentions of Poland's 1000 year history. Moreover, I have noticed that your edit is "seasonal", notably it was made shortly after the 15 of August which relates directly to the Battle of Warsaw (1920). Of course, my most recent edit regarding the various conflicts can be removed but then we would have to return to the original before your edit as well (see Help:Reverting). The current size of this section is appropriate, with seven to eight lines (depending on your screen format) in the two main paragraphs. See other country articles for comparison. It is not a GA page either. Merangs (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

To copy my reply to your message from 1:33 PM (UTC) on my Talk page: I simply copied the shorter paragraph from an earlier revision. Seemed long-standing enough for me. What are your objections? And what is your objection to highlighting the Polish-Soviet war. The partitions are highlighted, the Solidarity movement is highlighted. Why not the Polish-Soviet war? Without Poland's victory in it, there would've been no Poland today. Seems important enough to mention. Other conflicts were orders of magnitude less important. >>> Continuing, the third paragraph with the exception of the first sentence is all about the 20th century. I don't see how the word "Soviet" being uttered 2 times instead of 1 in this 20th century-related paragraph is undue weight. The Soviets weren't an issue to Poland just once in the 20th century. Hope you understand my points. Meellk (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know and appreciate the importance of the Polish-Soviet War, but it is all in the link along with other wars that were correlated. The terms "German" and "Communist" are also only mentioned once, and accordingly. Other conflicts were equally as important in the last 1000 years, yet they are not mentioned. The Polish-Soviet War topic is also outlined in one sentence (not my contribution) in the section "Second Polish Republic" of the Poland article. The Battle of Warsaw is linked separately near the subheading. The lead section should outline events that directly ended or began Polish sovereignty/statehood/changed from of government, not ones that threatened it. This can be explored further in the body of the article. Personally, I think that one sentence under the Second Polish Republic subheading about the Polish-Soviet War is not enough. Three would be nice. Merangs (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's the age-old question of presentism. Of course, the 20th century is much more important to us than everything that happened in the preceding 9 out of 11 centuries of Polish and European history. This is the case for most other country pages too such as Germany (quite obviously). This is only natural, though. Consider also that the Armed Forces Day falling on August 15th, an event even more entrenched institutionally than the National Independence Day falling on November 11th, commemorates the Polish-Soviet war, and the Miracle on the Vistula precisely. This commemoration, with the accompanying great military parade, has been taking place for over 100 years now, since 1921. Meanwhile, the National Independence Day of November 11th was "only" formalized in the 1930s. I think you're downplaying the significance of the Polish-Soviet war and I only wish you just ranked its significance higher, not due to subjective factors, but objective factors. The entrenched institutional recognition of this event by the Polish State and Nation is an objective factor that I think should be reckoned with. Meellk (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In no way am I attempting to downgrade or diminish the significance of that conflict, however, it is important how one presents history in the lead section. That's my only point. The Polish-Soviet War along with other correlated events in that period can really be summarised with that link which gives access to more information! Merangs (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That link actually leads to all conflicts Poland was ever embroiled in. I really am asking you ever so kindly once again to reconsider your position and allow that previous sentence to stay. It is also shorter. Meellk (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It shouldn't; after accessing the link, browser automatically redirects you to the section 1918-1939. It looks on point as of now (as a whole) and should not change any further. Merangs (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Grand Hotel, Łódź, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 24% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Royiswariii Talk! 04:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Merangs. Thank you for your work on Grand Hotel, Łódź. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day ahead for you and your family.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SunDawn: – thank you for your kind words! Merangs (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bastion Sakwowy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Wikishovel (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pretty sure Poland is a parliamentary republic, not a semi-presidential one. Could you please look into this? 79.191.68.13 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Foksal Street, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Merangs,

You're the original contributor of the Paweł Działyński page, according to its history. I'm looking for information on this: "The Haags Historisch Museum (Historical Museum of The Hague) in The Netherlands exhibits an anonymous painting, depicting Działyński as head of a Polish envoy delegation to the Dutch Republic in July 1597." The early versions of the Dzialynski page have been deleted because of copyright problems, so I can't be sure you added that info about the painting.

Do you happen to have information about this, or know where I might look for a citation? I wrote to the museum and they're not sure which painting it would be. Thanks much!

Unclevinny (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Unclevinny: - Hi, thanks so much for writing about this. I remember creating the page, but I wouldn't have added the information about the painting, especially without a source. Perhaps it was one of the IP edits and can be considered as vandalism? Działyński was also known by his Latin name - Paulus Dzialinski - as that was Poland's official language back then so it would be even more difficult to identify him. Furthermore, there were other Polish statesmen known by that name. Merangs (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's a shame, it seems like a dead end here. There's an outside chance some citation is buried in the deleted posts, do you know if a moderator would be able to access that info? (If they even had an interest!) Unclevinny (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Great news! I found the source of the painting and have added it to the article. I'm working on getting permission to upload it to Wikipedia, but for now there's a link along with some additional info. Unclevinny (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Unclevinny: – Wonderful! Merangs (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've just seen that the edits I've made to include the Silesian names of these cities were undone, one of the changes mentioned that these are 'neither native nor official'. Could I ask why you claim they're not the native names in Silesian? Vxern (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Vxern: - The Silesian 'names' are in the first sentence. They are not co-official with the Polish ones nor are they recognised by the government (when entering the cities/localities there are no Silesian names on the signs). Moreover, do they have a considerable minority speaking the Silesian language in each of these, for example Opole? Hence, no need to add more content and extending the infobox. Merangs (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter whether they're recognised by the government or not because native names aren't what Poland calls them, they're what the native names are in other languages. As for whether they have a considerable minority speaking Silesian in each of these - Yes, they do. All of these cities fall well within the area where Silesian is spoken, and Opole specifically even has its own dialect. Vxern (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

From a historical context, I personally do not see a problem. But the Silesian names are already in the first sentence and there is little point in adding them to the infobox, especially if the government does not recognise neither the language nor its status in those localities. Moreover, by adding Silesian, you are also giving ground for others to add German and Czech equivalents (both historically important) in the infobox, which would just clutter the articles. To be very honest, I am simply undoing an edit that would have been reverted by someone else in the near-future. Merangs (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

We're talking about documenting the Silesian name of a Silesian city. I'd understand this point if we argued against including Basque native name for a city in the middle of Asia, but we're talking about the name locals use in a language spoken within these cities. Based on this, I think it's totally appropriate that the sidebox includes it as well. Vxern (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

If we are looking to add these in infoboxes then at least with small letters. Merangs (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with just using the standard size like on any other page? Vxern (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

What other page? The Silesian names are not official. That is a good justification. Merangs (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

We've already tackled that they're not official, they're not required to be official to be shown in the infobox - they're native names. Vxern (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it is best to seek Wikipedia:Consensus and ask other users for opinion. @Piotrus: what is your take on this? Merangs (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. This seems relevant: WP:NCGN says "Infoboxes should generally... include these alternate names". "These", I assume, refers to "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. " So if we can show that Silesian-speakers used to live or still live somewhere, I think it's fine. Note that if there are " at least three alternate names" there should be a section for them, and they should be moved out of the lead. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

So, as per the convention, I am fine to go ahead and add the native names? @Piotrus: Vxern (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Vxern WP:BEBOLD, do it and see if anyone complains _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, after your comments regarding the illustrations in the infoboxes of large cities, I no longer intend to edit them. Do you see a need for improvements in the case of smaller cities? I have made edits to the articles on Zielona Góra, Sosnowiec, Suwałki, and Opole, trying to follow the rule regarding the time of day as much as possible. If you don't see a need for changes, please let me know. If I can make edits, I would appreciate your feedback. WScnin (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@WScnin: - They are fine, though the images used for Suwałki are already in the body of that article (see 'History' section) and are repetitive. They would need to be deleted or replaced. I would also limit the number of images used for smaller localities, for example the one for Sosnowiec was too large/long and I removed one photo. Shame about the previous photos for Opole, I thought they were quite alright but oh well. Merangs (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Przemysł II has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added a high res. picture of the true original Schultz painting, if you click all the way you will see a clear difference if skill level and detail between the two paintings one was done by Schultz the other by his student or something. X.ac-79 (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@X.ac-79: Ok, it's great that the resolution is now better. Merangs (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish people, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages West Slavic, Round Table Talks and Mongol invasions of Poland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you kindly provide a reason why the picture of the new police car was not good enough for you? You squat on that article and everything has to be to your liking. The image I included is far from controversial, is high res. and relevant. So, what is the problem. Ah Merangs likes Kia and two cops to be in the picture. JTR.99 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC) ...and you write "so kindly seek consensus"... so let's start a debate on the talk page if we should have a image of a newer police car. Perhaps we should get expert opinion on this. You are joking right. All because you had to get you way and replace that image right away. Only Merangs approved images in the Poland article. --JTR.99 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@JTR.99: – Firstly, your comments are reminiscent of a sockpuppet or that of a past user on Wikipedia, and I see that you are "new" but I will not assume bad faith from your side. Secondly, I disapprove of your accusations, language and the term "bully"; I contributed considerably to the Poland article over the past years and simply try to maintain good quality in good faith. Thirdly, I agree that an image with new Policja car livery is needed, but the picture you added is somewhat dull and does not represent the police car in full view but rather on some clogged street from the side. Quality of it is questionable. May I ask what is bad about the image I suggested? This is not about car brand, as you see I did not add a brand in my caption. I am open to an RfC, consensus or discussion. Merangs (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dull?? and the earlier pic was better? Also, the image I added is 3,000 × 2,250 pixels, not enough res for you? You are really making up excuses when you write things like this "does not represent the police car in full view but rather on some clogged street" and the image you included shows the cars in full view?. and quit accusing people of being sock puppets just because they made effort to update a silly picture of a police car and got annoyed when some old wikipedia editor overrides it with some crappy pic, just to show that they are on top. --JTR.99 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I could understand a revert if the image was clearly outdated, bad res., or not relevant but here it is not the case. Quit wasting your own time and mine by a debate about a simple police car image, because you think an pic with kia and two cops is better all of a sudden. --JTR.99 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

By "quality" I mean content and what is shown. I simply don't see how the image you suggest is any better than either (the old or the one I propose). However, if that is your approach and my comments or opinions are disregarded (with crude language) then I am simply not willing to discuss. Please seek consensus via RfC. Merangs (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"quality", ok so you are more interested in having an outdated picture over one which shows the latest police liverly. This is an encyclopedia not a car prospectus - I can see where your priorities lay... sure the pic is outdated but it represent the police car in full view (as if the new pic did not... baloney). --JTR.99 (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, a new one would be good as I have already indicated earlier. I am open to more suggestions regarding images from your side. Merangs (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help towards making the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: PJK 1993 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

I'm somewhat perplexed why you left a message on my talk page. Is this a threat of some kind? It seems like you are monitoring Poland articles wholesale and then revert some changes. However it's clear that the Poznan article has sections which overemphasize German historical facts related to the city. There is a whole article on the issue on undue weight: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight and balance Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

What I wrote in the summary about glorifying German Imperialism in the Architecture section is based on my experience on the Gdańsk and Poznań pages. I noticed that recent edits had more and more information about the German aspects of history, while facts related to the Polish history were being removed (we can go change by change and I'll show you).

The Imperial District was built as a propaganda tool to show German dominance over Poznan and that is not an exaggeration but a historical fact (the Germans had the "Colonial Commission" building built there, the German population that lived in Poznań were mostly German colonists Germanisation of the Province of Posen). If some previous editor wanted to focus on the architectural aspect of the buildings in the district they should have called that section Romanesque Revival and Neoclassicism, also there are other districts in Poznan so why this one was elevated? Similarly on the Gdańsk page a section titled "Early Poland" was changed to "Prehistory and early history" what got removed POLAND. I jumped in and started editing because I consider this inaccurate and just plain wrong, in the real world you call it spotting a "bias".

I would like to ask you a legitimate and honest question, since I see that you edited the Gdańsk page before, why you did not revert those edits which downplayed Polish history of the city? PJK 1993 (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I just don't know how to answer the above so I will keep it short. I removed the Royal Castle image and reverted to the original because it is a tacky pseudo-historic reconstruction, whereas the Imperial Castle is largely original and a well-known cultural centre in Poznań. At present, it bears no relation to German imperialism, symbols of which were removed. No personal favouritism towards the Imperial District either. I am more concerned about the behaviour and you tipping the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The Poland-related articles were fine and stable for long until now. Merangs (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

But you see, this is a superficial reason, ultimately the Royal Castle is a real landmark in Poznań, it houses one of the city's museums and by all accounts it's popular with the locals and tourists. So it clearly has value and that fact needs to be recognized. As for the other topic I mentioned, I was really struck by the fact that on the Gdańsk page the medieval history of Piast Poland got lumped with the stone age and the bronze age. That's some crazy POV. --PJK 1993 (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Royal Castle is not a real landmark and barely anyone will agree with this nonsense. I am mostly active in visual and graphic representation of Poland-related articles, rarely do I edit content nowadays. Merangs (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I undid my own reversion because the editor I reverted said they were moving the content to a new article. Not sure if they actually did that or not tho. Cheers! Nomadgeek (^T/_C\^D) 22:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Not sure if there wasn't a discussion about merging vareniki and pierogi in the past and whether that was not the final outcome, but I was not involved in it. Merangs (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why are you restoring incorrect data? I see you have no idea about Poland and are harming the article. With such poor knowledge of Poland, you shouldn't interfere. Polska-PL (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Polska-PL: - I created the article as it looks now. List problems with it instead of imposing nonconstructive edits just because you feel like it. You were warned before by others not to change content without good sources. Also, when reviewing your edits, you tend to delete footnotes as well. My knowledge of a country is based on references and credible sources, not sure about you. If your account is vandalism-based, it won't stay active for long. Merangs (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Stop making it sound like you created the article. Many people created it, including me, and I bet it's more my input than yours. Besides, from what I see, you don't know much about Poland. Footnotes? Many of the footnotes are old and incorrect, such as the largest depression in Poland. The height of the highest Polish peak is also incorrect. What good are footnotes if they're outdated or incorrect because they refer to something else? You, on the other hand, are restoring this erroneous data. Have you ever been to Rysy? I bet you haven't, since you're restoring erroneous data. Why are you removing climate data? Maximum and minimum temperatures are more useful to people than average, which largely distorts the actual temperatures in Poland. Why are you removing nominal GDP data? This is the MOST IMPORTANT parameter for foreigners, i.e., for non-Polish wikis. If you care about PPP, you can add it without removing the nominal one, but it seems you're deliberately trying to create a problem. Polska-PL (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your accusations are crude about knowledge of the country, and I am not taking you as a serious editor based on your comments. Yes, many people contributed to it, but check article history when it comes to individual editor input. If footnotes are incorrect, replace them with credible ones and don't delete them. Makes you look bad and unprofessional. With climate, you also deleted a source. Nominal and PPP-based GDP in EU is fine, however, how is 20th in the world worthy of the lead section? In the meantime, I will check the link to Rysy and provide a better source if you believe it is incorrect. Merangs (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ty jesteś Polakiem? To porozmawiajmy po polsku. Oskarżenia nie są prymitywne tylko obiektywne skoro przywracasz błędne dane. Nie muszę sprawdzać historii artykułu bo sam go tworzę od ponad 20 lat, więc spora część jest tu moja i to poczynając już od samego początku artykułu. Przypisy możesz dodać sam jak tak bardzo ci zależy bo ja dodaję jeśli nie ma przypisu w innym artykule. Jeśli jest np. w artykule o Marzęcinach, do których jest linkowanie to po co przypis w tym artykule? To raczej tylko go zaśmieca. Które źródło w klimacie usunąłem? To być może błąd, napisz konkretnie o które chodzi. Tak PKB zasługuje na głowną jest związane chociażby z G20. Ja nie widzę problemu żebyś dodał też info o ppp. Jeśli chodzi o Rysy mogę ci wyjaśnić dokładnie o co chodzi jeśli chcesz. Polska-PL (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Polska nie jest (jeszcze) w G20 więc nie rozumiem po co to wymieniać. W dodatku, czy 20 gospodarka świata to co coś tak bardzo szczególnego? Osobiście, dodałbym to do rozdziału o gospodarce i ekonomii. Wstęp artykułu jest podsumowaniem najistotniejszych danych i informacji - 5/6 PKB w Unii to jest ważny wskaźnik, 20 światowa niezbyt. Jeśli wprowadzasz zmiany od 20 lat to dlaczego nie zmieniasz/dodajesz źródeł? Jesteśmy przyzwyczajeni do częstych ataków szkodących tej stronie i potem nie jesteśmy w stanie odróżnić osoby wprowadzającej rzetelne zmiany od zwykłych wandali. Merangs (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dlatego nie ma nic o G20 ale 20 gospodarka to jest najistotniejszy wskażnik PKB. To największe gospodarki liczą się na świecie, a nie pkb na osobę czy inne wskaźniki. Gdyby tak było to w G20 i ogolnie na świecie za potęgę uchodziłby Monaco i Luksemburg :D Ze źródłami już pisałem jeśli jest źródło w artykule do którego jest linkowanie to po co je powtarzać? Dodaj po prostu info o PKB ppp i wszyscy będą zadowoleni. Myślę, że nam Polakom powinno zależeć na rzetelnym artykule o Polsce. Polska-PL (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Widzę, że cofnąłeś moją edycję w rozsądnym miejscu. Rozumiem, że doszliśmy do porozumienia i zostaje pkb ppp, a ja dodaję nominalne. OK? Polska-PL (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dodałem wzmiankę o 20 gospodarce świata w sekcji o ekonomii, ze źródłem. Myślę że to wystarczy. Wstęp do strony obecnie wygląda dobrze. Umieszczając informacje w tej górnej części jedynie o 5 i 6 miejscu gosp. w Unii lepiej podkreśla i amplifikuje rozmiar ekonomiczny, niż 20 miejsce. Merangs (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nie, ja się z tym nie zgadzam, szczególnie że unia poza Europą nie jest postrzegana jako coś istotnego. I dlatego zdecydowanie w sekcji głównej musi być informacja o 20 PKB na świecie. Polska-PL (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nic nie musi. Łamiesz zasady Wikipedii według Wikipedia:Consensus i mam nadzieję że przyszłe edycje oraz przypadki Ciebie tego nauczą. Merangs (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

January Uprising

added a link pointing to Partisan

November Uprising

added a link pointing to Tsar Nicholas

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Artemis Andromeda (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I reverted you here - please see MOS:ART on what to say ("now in") and what NOT to say ("housed"). Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod: - Thanks for this! Merangs (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is there any justification that from 1815 to 1939 map of Silesia historically erased Duchy of Upper and Lower Silesia from the map? ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, which map exactly on Commons are you referring to? Merangs (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Map in infobox 1815-1939 in article Silesia. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I am a fellow editor, I've been on Wikipedia since 2020, and I've authored a couple dozen articles (alongside writing much of Gdańsk, which almost got GA, and also one successful GA), and recently I embarked on a project of rewriting the Polans (western) article because it was far from satisfactory in its current state. My ideal position for it to be at GA status, but I think even after my big reform it is far from being that, because there are definitely a lot of gaps (specifically in terms of the actual historical expansion and history under Mieszko I). Sadly all of the sources I have on hand at home only very briefly describe this expansion, the plwiki articles about this don't cite the expansion, and there are no good sources for the Polan expansion on English Wikipedia. Could you perhaps point me as to where I could look? Also, do you notice any other problems with the article?

Kind regards, Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 20:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Luxtaythe2nd: - Hi, thank you for writing! I would love to help. Let me study the article more closely this week and will reach back with some suggestions in the coming days. Regarding Polish-language sources, I usually utilise excerpts from Google Books; the older the source, the more content I am able to obtain from there by placing keywords in the Google Books search bar. Frankly speaking, I already did a small search and found that Siwiński's 'Wczesne dzieje Polan' are fully available to view; you can use that as your foundation. Merangs (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Merangs: Thanks for the quick reply! I am a Polish speaker indeed. Thank you for the offer, too, I might try that method, for now I will be doing some smaller cleanup with other articles. Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 20:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Luxtaythe2nd: Ok! :) Not sure if you saw my addition whilst responding but try Siwiński's 'Wczesne dzieje Polan' which are available to view for free on Google Books. Merangs (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Florence, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medici Chapel was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here (some years ago) you reverted my commit adding the Belarusian version of Commonwealth king's name. You refer to some discussions about the topic, but I cannot find it. Obviously the names of many Commonwealth politicians are (esp. ones of Ruthenian/Lithuanian background) are provided in Belarusian as well. But what about the kings? For this particular case of Sigismund I I cannot fathom what is the reason that is provided in Lithuanian, but not in Belarusian? Thanks The endik (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@The endik: - Hi, thanks for your message. I do not see greater significance in adding more and more names in the lead sections, which should be brief and should summarise only critical facts. I do not question entirely the addition of Ruthenian names (and modern Belarusian renditions) to articles, but let's keep it more to the point. Unless the king had direct influence over the lands which now constitute Belarus, the name should not be forced. Merangs (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply