User talk:Corran.pl

SESM/Renk

Why did you replace SESM by Renk? The powerpack is 100% a French development from SESM which is a subsidiary of Renk. But there is not any Renk Techonology in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.6.64.10 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In Polish sources it is refered as Renk, In the name S-1000R, the R stands for Renk (to difer it from S-1000 with polish transmision). If you can provaide any source I will be glad to change it. Do you think that writing SESM/Renk will be ok? --Corran.pl (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Czołg PT-91.jpg

Why is the resolution so low on this image?Geni 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why deleted valuable desciption?

Hi, thanks for contributing the MiG-29 article. The MiG-29K its an interesting edit. However, can you give a reason why you tailored all the description for the model from A - SM? I have to revert it until you came up with something to replace the deleted information. Regards, ChowHui (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Poland Land Force Structure

Hi, thanks for the info. Where did you get it from? Are you sure about it??? The structure you present is completely different from the structure I found on the homepage of the various Polish military units. Also this is a massive reduction in units - are you sure? See, if you are sure about your changes it is fine for me, but I ask because I want to be sure, that we upload a more correct version afterwards. greetings, --noclador (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at the Polish language wikipedia and there all the Brigades you removed from the graphic are still listed as active units of the Polish Land Forces... --noclador (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia is wrong. Please correct your grapahic or remove it. --Corran.pl (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I will do neither. Before I change any of my graphics I require some proof, that the Polish Land Force Structure has really changed. As of now the only information about such a change is your claim; this is not enough. I had a look at some of the official pages of the Polish Land Forces and I found many differences between what you say and what I found there. --noclador (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had no good sources then why are you posting informations that you can be sure of? You don't belive me - ok, then just remove this graphic, it creates wrong impression of facts. --Corran.pl (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone down your aggressive tone. Instead of insulting me - go through all! the Polish units with me and let us correct the English and Polish Wikipedia articles about the Polish Land Forces and correct the graphic too! In May last year I asked for help from Polish people to create a perfect graphic of the Polish Land Forces (like here, and here, or here) but only one Pole answered me (you did too - but I just found out now. You and BartekChom answered me here but only in September, when I did not look at the Polish Army pages anymore.) The single Pole who answered me was User:Halibutt, who without a doubt is the hardest-working and most diligent Wikipedian writing about Polish military matters. Together we looked at all the homepages of Polish units and based on the information there we created the graphic. So last year on June 25th the graphic was totally correct. As now it is not correct anymore, you and I will correct it, BUT we will need to go from Brigade to Brigade to make sure the graphic is 100% accurate again. As soon as we now what the new structure is, I will update the English wiki articles too and you should update the Polish articles. I have begun to with the 11 LDKPanc. --noclador (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it was very hard for you to collect proper data, but like I said before - you should hold your self from posting this map when your sources are so weak. --Corran.pl (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I need you to translate some things: http://www.10bkpanc.sow.mil.pl/struktury/index_pododdzialy.htm a) grupa zabezpieczenia medycznego = Medical ??? Group; b) Ośrodek szkolenia „LEOPARD” = ??? --noclador (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You should hold yourself from posting informations about structures lower then battalion, there are no official sources on detailed Polish Army structures because it was not realized to public. Translations: Medical Support Group and Training Center "Leopard". --Corran.pl (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Polish Land Forces Update

I have begun to update the article about the Polish Land Forces. First I redesigned the graphic for the 11th Armoured Cavalry Division next up the 16th Mechanized Division. As you can see I took the information from the official homepage of the 11th Armoured Cavalry Division: http://www.11ldkpanc.mil.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=69&Itemid=76 Over the next 2 weeks I will update all the graphics about the Polish Land Forces and in the end put them together to create a full graphic. --noclador (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello and welcome Corran.pl! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your articles

Please consider entering them at T:TDYK and WP:MILCON.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ilość PT-91 i T-72M1Z

Witam.

Przejdę od razu do rzeczy. Chciałbym się zapytać dlaczego notorycznie manipulujesz informacjami w artykule o czołgu podstawowym PT-91. Jak się już pewnie domyśliłeś z tytułu tej wiadomości chodzi mi o ilość czołgów podstawowych PT-91 i T-72M1Z. Sytuacja ta jest dosyć specyficzna ponieważ jak udało mi się dowiedzieć jesteś bardzo dobrze obeznany z tematem militariów. Nie rozumiem więc dlaczego manipulujesz w ten sposób informacjami i jedyny wniosek do jakiego można w tej chwili dojść jest następujący: Manipulujesz te informacje by "pokazać Wojsko Polskie z lepszej strony". Podejrzewam, że zaraz iż w Wojsku Polskim T-72M1Z są traktowane tak samo jak PT-91 oraz że są one praktycznie identyczne i w ten sposób stwierdzisz iż nic wielkiego się nie stało. Być może z wojskowego punktu widzenia takie wytłumaczenie by przeszło jednakże takie wytłumaczenie nie wystarcza w przypadku pisania encyklopedii opartej na prawdzie. Pozwól, że wyjaśnię na czym polega problem. Jeżeli powiemy "na wyposażeniu Wojsk Lądowych RP znajduje się 98 czołgów PT-91 i 135 czołgów T-72M1Z" to informacja wynikająca z tego stwierdzenia będzie następująca: "98 czołgów PT-91 zostało wyprodukowanych ,a 135 czołgów T-72M1 zostało przebudowanych do standardu PT-91". Jednakże jeżeli powiemy "na wyposażeniu Wojsk Lądowych RP znajduje się 233 czołgi PT-91" to informacja wynikająca z tego stwierdzenia będzie diametralnie inna w porównaniu do stanu faktycznego: "233 czołgi PT-91 zostało wyprodukowanych". Jak widzisz powstaje tu dość duże przekłamanie. I moim zdaniem lepiej normalnie napisać, że WP ma tyle i tyle czołgów PT-91 oraz tyle i tyle T-72M1Z niż później jeszcze dopisywać w nawiasie, że tyle i tyle zostało wyprodukowanych, a tyle i tyle zostało przebudowanych.

A na koniec mam jeszcze jedną sprawę do ciebie też dotyczącą wspomnianego wyżej artykułu. Co miałeś na myśli pisząc "when the rest of them was rebuild from T-72M1s to 0 hours/0 km PT-91"? Pomijając fakt iż zdanie powinno być następujące, żeby było poprawne: "while the rest are rebuild T-72M1s", to co ma znaczyć stwierdzenie "to 0 hours/0 km PT-91"?

Pozdrawiam. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Znaczenie ma takie że wzięto góra 10 letniego T-72M1 wypruto z niego wszystko co się dało dostał całe nowe wyposażenie od silnika ( z całym układem przeniesienia - stary nie wytrzymywał zwiększonej mocy) po okablowanie, z T-72M1 została goła wieża i goła wanna kadłuba.

Wozem doprowadzonym do standardu określa się wozy "jak nowe" ale nie fabrycznie nowe, np. czołgi M1 Abrams zmodernizowane ze starszych wersji jak M1 IP do M1A2 SEP (choć tu turbina zostaje stara - ale po generalnym remoncie, za to nowy jest pancerz wieży). Jeśli dalej nie rozumiesz co to znaczy poszukaj informacji o czołgach M1 sprzedanych do Australii, nie były to wozy nowe ale "jak nowe".

Niemcy z Leopardami stosowali podobne zabiegi. Wszystkie wyprodukowane Leopardy 2 wersji starszych niż A4 były zmodernizowane do tego standardu i nikt nie wprowadzał jakiegoś zróżnicowania oznaczeń.

A wracając do Twardego to najzwyczajniej na świecie nie rozumiesz o czym piszesz, wozy nowe i przebudowane nie różnią się absolutnie niczym istotnym, nie są bardziej zużyte ponieważ wszystkie elementy zużywające się zostały wymienione na nowe. Pancerz zasadniczy i dodatkowy jest tożsamy, podobnie jak wyposażenie.

W instrukcjach wojskowych wymienione są 3 wersje wyposażenia PT-91, po prostu PT-91, PT-91M i PT-91MA1 niestety nie udało mi się dowiedzieć czym dokładnie się różnią. Najpewniej PT-91 to parta wozów (ok 20) przedseryjnych, zaś PT-91M i PT-91MA1 seryjnych. Liczby mi się nie zgadzają z liczbami wozów nowych i przebudowanych tak więc PT-91M to najprawdopodobniej zarówno wozy nowe jak przebudowane (i te nie różnią się absolutnie niczym, mają te same instrukcje).

Co do oskarżeń o poprawianie wizerunku wojska - człowieku, no nie bądź śmieszny. Weź z łaski swoje przejrzyj historię artykułu poszukaj kto umieścił w nim informacje o T-72M1Z.

--Corran.pl (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nie musisz mnie pouczać o tym co oznacza określenie "jak nowe". Jakbyś uważnie czytał to byś się doczytał iż wyraźnie napisałem "[...]w Wojsku Polskim T-72M1Z są traktowane tak samo jak PT-91 oraz że są one praktycznie identyczne[...]". Po za tym powiedz mi co brak specjalnych oznaczeń dla zmodernizowanych Abramsów i Leopardów ma do tej konkretnej sytuacji? Bo z tego co wiem to dla zmodernizowanych T-72M1 specjalne oznaczenie istnieje i brzmi T-72M1Z. Nie rozumiem dlaczego nie chcesz go używać zwłaszcza skoro sam dodałeś informacje o nim do artykułu oraz iż wiemy od jakiegoś czasu, że dokładnie 135 wozów został zmodernizowanych. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Te wozy nie są praktycznie identyczne, one są po prostu identyczne. Jakieś 80 % artykułu o PT-91 jest moja i proponuje ci byś bardziej produktywnie spędził swój czas np na napisaniu nowego artykułu (np o Kalinie, UPG lub czymkolwiek) zamiast szukać dziury w całym. --Corran.pl (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nie jesteś jedynym edytorem na całe Wikipedii. Twój artykuł nie jest "twój" tylko wspólny zwłaszcza tu na anglojęzycznej Wikipedii. Wiem, że prowadzisz własną wikię i tam twoje artykuły są twoje, ale tu artykuły są wspólne. Nie możesz od tak tutaj mówić innemu edytorowi, żeby nie ruszał "twojego artykułu" i żeby "zajął się czymś innym". Po za tym nie odpowiedziałeś na moje pytanie: Co brak specjalnych oznaczeń dla zmodernizowanych Abramsów i Leopardów ma do tej konkretnej sytuacji? Bo z tego co wiem to dla zmodernizowanych T-72M1 specjalne oznaczenie istnieje i brzmi T-72M1Z. Nie rozumiem dlaczego nie chcesz go używać zwłaszcza skoro sam dodałeś informacje o nim do artykułu oraz iż wiemy od jakiegoś czasu, że dokładnie 135 wozów został zmodernizowanych. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Przede wszystkim nie jestem ignorantem który chce cos zrobić ale posiada absolutnie zerową wiedzę.

Odpowiedź ministra obrony narodowej na interpelację nr 8614 w sprawie sytuacji wojsk pancernych

http://orka2.sejm.gov.pl/IZ6.nsf/main/6F7FDAC0

Odpowiadając na pytanie pana posła Ludwika Dorna dotyczące liczby poszczególnych modeli czołgów, informuję, że na wyposażeniu Sił Zbrojnych Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej znajduje się:

- 128 czołgów Leopard 2A4;

- 232 czołgi PT-91 (92 - PT-91, 27 - PT-91M, 113 - PT-91MA1);

- 584 czołgi T-72 (172 - T-72, 135 - T-72A, 254 - T-72M1, 23 - T-72M1D).

Widzisz tu T-72M1Z?--Corran.pl (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Co ty w tej chwili próbujesz udowodnić? Że T-72M1Z nie istnieje? A konkretniej nie istnieje jako 135 czołgów T-72M1 ulepszonych do standardu PT-91? To ty po raz pierwszy dodałeś go do artykułu o PT-91 więc dlaczego nagle sobie zaprzeczasz? Po za tym co tu robi T-72A? Przecież sowieci nigdy nam ich nie sprzedali! My dostaliśmy tylko okrojonego T-72A czyli T-72M. Po za tym PT-91A to tylko demonstrator, a PT-91M to z tego co wiem wariant EKSPORTOWY dla Malezji (takie informacje możesz znaleźć także w "twoim" artykule o PT-91). - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Co tobie chcę udowodnić - tobie nic. Po za tym co tu robi T-72A? Przecież sowieci nigdy nam ich nie sprzedali! - znów demonstrujesz swoją ignorancję. WP posiadało T-72 4 typów (licząc M1 i M1D jako jeden typ). T-72 produkcji radzieckiej (bardzo niewielka liczba), T-72M produkcji polskiej (w WP oznaczane poprostu T-72) - czyli zubożone T-72A, T-72A produkcji polskiej oraz T-72M1 (i M1D) również produkcji polskiej. Naprawdę mam ciekawsze zajęcia niż tłumaczyć ci wszystkie możliwe zawiłości. Nie znasz się na czymś - nie ruszaj tego, tyle ode mnie. --Corran.pl (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Zdjęcia z MONu

Zauważyłem, że na twojej wikii Militarypedia używasz zdjęć z MONu. Z skąd wziąłeś pozwolenie na dobrowolne używanie tych zdjęć? Pytam bo przedwczoraj pewien administrator na Wikipedia Commons zakwestionował pozwolenie załatwione na podstawie emaila z centrum informacyjnego MONu z przed czterech lat i grozi to wielkim zubożeniem zasobów Wikipedii na temat polskich Sił Zbrojnych. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Rosomak M1 with RPGNet in Afghanistan.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Rosomak M1 with RPGNet in Afghanistan.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polish Air Force, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages W-3 and ASW. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polish Air Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lipowiec. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polish Land Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dana. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:22, 20 November 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) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rosomak M1 with RPGNet in Afghanistan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rosomak M1 with RPGNet in Afghanistan.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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Corran.pl. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:FBRadomWeapons

A tag has been placed on Template:FBRadomWeapons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Corran.pl. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Corran.pl. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Corran.pl. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)