User talk:Alexvonf~enwiki

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Alexvonf~enwiki, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki links syntax

A co do interwiki linkow to chyba nie znasz skladni - wyglada tak: [[przedrostek jezykowy, np en, de, pl:nazwa artykulu na danej wiki]], np [[en:Poland]], [[pl:Polska]]. Efekt jest taki, ze w artykule pojawia sie w tablece odnosnik do innej wiki - nie trzeba dodawac to external linkow. Zerknij na moje zmiany [1] i [2]. Aha, na zakonczenie - najlatwiej sie podpisywac uzywajac drugiego przycisku od prawej z okna edycji, co daje --~~~~. Pozdr! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

nie, nie znam, mnie takie zabawy nie interesuja, tylko pisanie tekstow.W German Wikipedia te reguly inaczej wygladaja i chyba sa latwiejsze. Pozdr AvF--Alexvonf 09:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Niemożliwe, we wszystkich wiki linki interwiki wyglądają tak samo i tak samo się je wstawia. Halibu tt

Alexvonf: dlaczego napisałeś nieprawdę ? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Rydz-%C5%9Amig%C5%82y&diff=next&oldid=11758223 . Żona Rydza-Śmigłego została zamordowana. Czemu angielska wersja jest tak różna od polskiej pod tym względem ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.111.159.222 (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Królestwo

Czy mógłbyś zajrzeć na Talk:Regency Kingdom of Poland (1916-1918)? Jest tam kilka pytań do Ciebie. Halibu tt 07:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Radziwiłł

A co do Ołyki - nie pamiętam już na jakiej książce bazowałem, ale być może opisywała ona stan pod koniec istnienia Związku Sowieckiego, a nie stan obecny. Swoją drogą - nie wiedziałem że pałac odbudowano. Halibu tt 16:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

wedlug nowej polskiej encyklopedii i Olyka, i Nieswiez sa odnowione, jak wynika z tam zamieszczonych fotografii. W artykule o Radziwille musialem tez zmienic tytulature, "ksiaze" nie tlumaczy sie na angielski jako Duke, lecz jako Prince. Wszyscy Radziwillowie sa "Prince" - oprocz tytulu potwierdzonego przez unie Lubelska maja nadany przez cesarza Ferdynanda I. tytul Swietego Cesarstwa "Reichsfürst". Ci, co byli ordynatami na Nieswiezu i Olyce (dwie linie pochodzace od Antoniego H. Radziwilla) byli oprocz tego w Almanachu Gotajskim tytulowani (fr.) Duc, niem. Herzog, ang. Duke. Niestety znajomosc angielskiego wielu najwyrazniej polskich autorow eng wiki - stylistyki, gramatyki i ortografii- pozostawia w wielu przypadkach wiele do zyczenia.

--Alexvonf 09:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To zależy. W angielskiej historiografii przyjęło się tłumaczenie niemieckich książąt jako "prince", a wschodnich kniaziów jako "duke" (patrz choćby Grand Duchy of Lithuania (a nie Grand Princedom of Lithuania. Sprawa komplikuje się jeszcze bardziej przez to, że ani książąt ani kniaziów w Polsce nie mieliśmy ("szlachcic na zagrodzie równy wojewodzie", i inne takie...). Dlatego z Radziwiłłami jest problem: czy za tytuł "podstawowy" uznać kniaziowski, czy ten potwierdzony (potwierdzony, a nie nadany!) przez Cesarza. Ja obstawiałbym przy duke, ale w zasadzie wszystko jedno.

A tak na marginesie: odpowiadaj proszę na mojej stronie dyskusji, a nie na swojej. W ten sposób będę wiedział, że się do mnie odezwałeś (powiadomienie). Inaczej musiałbym co jakiś czas zaglądać na strony dyskusji wszystkich wikipedystów, z którymi się kontaktuję. A jest ich trochę...

--Halibu tt 11:15, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, tak gwoli ścisłości, to mieliśmy więcej takich określeń - wszystkie importowane. Diuk, kronprinz, kniaź, książę, delfin... Możemy oczywiście przyjąć wersję, że tytuły używane przez polską magnaterię najpierw tłumaczymy na niemiecki (wedle niemieckich ksiąg), a stamtąd dopiero na angielski, ale chciałem tylko zaznaczyć, że nie jest to jedyna możliwa wersja. :) Halibu tt 11:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Almanach Gotajski rodow ksiazecych prowadzony byl po francusku, nie po niemiecku.--Alexvonf 12:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rydz-Śmigły

Co do Rydza - kiedyś trafiłem na jego grób - zupełnie przypadkiem. Najłatwiej doń trafić Aleją Zasłużonych. Na samym końcu skręcasz w lewo (w stronę Kaczmarskiego) i tam, po jakichś 30 metrach, ciut odsunięta od alejki prostopadłej do końcówki Aleji Zasłużonych jest kwatera Rydza i kilku innych wrześniowców i polityków. Wszyscy leżą w prostych grobach, więc może być trudno ich wypatrzyć, ale wystarczy kogoś spytać. Halibu tt 16:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Żaden problem. Jeśli będziesz miał jakieś problemy, to tuż przy głównej bramie (od strony Powązkowskiej) jest budka administracji cmentarza, gdzieś tak do szesnastej ktoś tam powinien siedzieć. Tam można zasięgnąć języka i sprawdzić dokładny "adres" w księgach cmentarnych. Halibu tt 09:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... w takim razie przepraszam. Po prostu tak tę drogę zapamiętałem. Ale przynajmniej miałeś miły spacer Aleją Zasłużonych :) Aha, jak byłem tam ostatnim razem (latem zeszłego roku), to zadnej flagi tam nie było, a jedynie kilka zniczy. Na grobie Becka - ani jednego :( Cieszę się jednak, że to się zmieniło. Halibu tt 10:06, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Your message

Answered at my talk page. Thanks! --Yurik 09:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint Stanislaus.

Hello Alex,

Do you use this page? I would like to talk about the Order of Saint Stanislaus.

Robert Prummel 23:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:StAndrew.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StAndrew.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. |EPO| 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Sibyllenort Schloss.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Sibyllenort Schloss.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Buonaparte2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Buonaparte2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Napvict..jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Napvict..jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Hans Beseler.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hans Beseler.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly ^hi! 17:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Louise von Sachsen.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Louise von Sachsen.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Raczynski.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Raczynski.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Alexvonf. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Alexvonf~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

21:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

10:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]