255:; this is nonsense. Whether or not the word carries a positive or negative connotation depends on context it is used in, not whether it was used in the 19th century or today. Also, if it is used "differently" in other sense there is no sense in having this in "See Also". At the very least you'd need some sources which link the phrase to the old pagan festival or the 19th century poem. It basically looks like someone did a search for the word "dziad" on Knowledge and threw in anything in there without much thought.
107:
159:
138:
169:
358:- because last time I tried to improve the article you just reverted me with some spurious reasoning. "Has taken on a life of its own" is essentially a cliche and unencyclopedic language. There's quite a bit of difference between "bugger off" and "piss off". The refs still need to be formatted, the un-RS refs and the irrelevant SAs removed.
372:
What's the difference between bugger and piss off? As a native speaker I don't see a big one. As for adding a 'z', you know I wouldn't revert that. It's a question of correct or incorrect, whereas the thing I reverted was a question of opinion. "Has taken on a life of its own" is perfectly fine in
456:
translated as "fuck off" - a bodily fonction all right :-) Do you still need more clarification? That Malick is ignorant I know, but now I begin to doubt that
Piotrus is Konieczny :-) For non-Polish speakers I say: 'pieprzyc' and 'pierdolic' are the shades of "to fuck". I am sure now you will can
522:
does not mean "to add some pepper" and neither it the same as "spieprzyć"? Not to say that "pepper away" means something in a sense totally opposite to "speprzać": clearly, someone who is peppering away at you na razie nie ma zamiaru spieprzać. -No.Altenmann
250:; "Spiepraj" isn't even a word. And btw, literally "spieprzaj" means "pepper off", though since it's slang it can be translated accordingly. The part about it meaning "bugger off" is pure original research, not in the source and should be removed.
260:"Przemyslawowi" is incorrect. It means "to Przemyslaw", as in "somebody did something to Przemyslaw". The name is "Przemyslaw". This, along with other parts of the article reads like a mistake due to too much reliance on google translate.
275:
The translation of the original Polish is pretty bad. Again, the translation should have a source; if the phrase or the conversation is notable, then there shouldn't be much problem in finding a professional translation in a reliable
319:
Now, for example, the sources clearly show that the phrase appears in films, games, on tv, on coins... etc. So the paraphrase that you complain of - "has taken on a life of its own" - is a synthesis of material which
332:? I think not. "Bugger off" for instance is close enough to "piss off" to be synonymous. Your complaint in this case is willfully spurious it seems to me. I know you don't like the article's existence, but come on.
393:
85:
514:
subject of the article, and you seem not aware of this. And in is good to know that it is "not your style" to engage in editing war in subjects you seem to have no idea. Gosh, is there any
431:
Links to other meanings do not contribute to understanding of the current topic, neither they point to similar topics. The only similarity is superficial: Polish word dziad. -No.Altenmann
281:; on Knowledge we don't use editorials as reliable sources nor do we write about what some editorial wrote somewhere about something, unless that editorial by itself is somehow notable.
356:
Radeksz, why not just add the 'z' that's missing in "spiepraj"? It's so much easier to be constructive than to waste space up above telling others that the 'z' is missing.
308:
Radeksz, why not just add the 'z' that's missing in "spiepraj"? It's so much easier to be constructive than to waste space up above telling others that the 'z' is missing.
47:
490:
and try to refrain from further vulgarities. I'm not going to engage in editing war because that is not my style... not because of what "piss off, you old git" means.
66:
552:
225:
215:
411:
The overhaul seems fine :) I'd still keep a heading before the dialogue though - something like "Incident". But that's just personal preference.
557:
547:
191:
272:
Generally, the refs need to be formatted; they need title, author and date of publication or date of last access at the very least.
269:
which appears to be just a website entitled "News" and is probably not a reliable source (apparently they copy text from
Knowledge)
457:
find WP:RS for these when you know what to look for. Since I am a
Russophone, I am 'sjobyvaju' from here now. :-) -No.Altenmann
263:
There is a difference between "Wiadomosci" (which means "News" in Polish) from Gazeta
Wyborcza as used in this citation
182:
143:
118:
506:
I don't need to loook up the word 'pieprz': it is not used in this article, therefore I deleted discussion of it as
311:
As for accusations of OR... not everything we write has to have been said by a source directly. The rule is that OR
267:
106:
313:"refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis
124:
496:
326:"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source."
524:
458:
432:
190:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
416:
401:
378:
344:
363:
296:
264:
507:
491:
287:
There are also numerous grammar and spelling mistakes speppered through out the article.
475:
392:
Forgive the overhaul, but since the article is here to stay following its most recent
325:
312:
541:
412:
397:
374:
340:
174:
448:
Wow, I am so surprised that self-proclaimed native Polish speakers do not know the
438:
359:
292:
284:"It has since taken on a life of its own" is unsourced OR and fairly unencylopedic.
487:
164:
158:
137:
479:
530:
501:
464:
420:
405:
382:
367:
348:
335:
And if you find any other missing letters (a 'z', or 'pl' for example), be
300:
483:
396:, I decided to make it look even more like a real thing. Stay cool. ---
452:
origins of the words 'spieprzaj' & 'spierdalaj'! Both of them are
187:
336:
100:
478:. Look up the meaning of "pieprz" yourself, or just click
279:
258:
253:
248:
78:
59:
40:
186:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
328:. Will all the things you complain about really be
315:advances a position not advanced by the sources
510:. As for "further vulgarities", sorry, it is
8:
104:
132:
19:
15:
134:
474:the language is even better, isn't it
324:suggest this position. Also, consider
7:
180:This article is within the scope of
518:Pole here who can explain him that
427:other meanings of the word 'dziady'
123:It is of interest to the following
14:
167:
157:
136:
105:
220:This article has been rated as
553:Low-importance Poland articles
1:
421:11:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
406:04:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
383:23:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
368:16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
349:12:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
301:22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
194:and see a list of open tasks.
200:Knowledge:WikiProject Poland
558:WikiProject Poland articles
548:Start-Class Poland articles
203:Template:WikiProject Poland
574:
291:This is just for starters.
226:project's importance scale
339:and correct it yourself.
219:
152:
131:
22:
18:
531:04:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
502:19:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
470:Ignorance is bliss, but
465:05:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
439:04:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
113:This article is rated
426:
86:Articles for deletion
48:Articles for deletion
266:and Wiadomosci.pl
183:WikiProject Poland
119:content assessment
23:Article milestones
444:Spieprzaj, take 2
240:
239:
236:
235:
232:
231:
99:
98:
95:
94:
79:September 3, 2010
565:
499:
243:Various problems
208:
207:
204:
201:
198:
177:
172:
171:
170:
161:
154:
153:
148:
140:
133:
116:
110:
109:
101:
81:
62:
43:
20:
16:
573:
572:
568:
567:
566:
564:
563:
562:
538:
537:
497:
446:
429:
245:
206:Poland articles
205:
202:
199:
196:
195:
173:
168:
166:
146:
117:on Knowledge's
114:
77:
67:Deletion review
60:August 27, 2010
58:
39:
12:
11:
5:
571:
569:
561:
560:
555:
550:
540:
539:
536:
535:
534:
533:
476:User:Altenmann
445:
442:
428:
425:
424:
423:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
352:
351:
333:
309:
289:
288:
285:
282:
277:
273:
270:
261:
256:
251:
244:
241:
238:
237:
234:
233:
230:
229:
222:Low-importance
218:
212:
211:
209:
192:the discussion
179:
178:
162:
150:
149:
147:Low‑importance
141:
129:
128:
122:
111:
97:
96:
93:
92:
89:
82:
74:
73:
70:
63:
55:
54:
51:
44:
36:
35:
32:
29:
25:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
570:
559:
556:
554:
551:
549:
546:
545:
543:
532:
529:
528:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
500:
495:
494:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
468:
467:
466:
463:
462:
455:
451:
443:
441:
440:
437:
436:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:
408:
407:
403:
399:
395:
384:
380:
376:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
353:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:
327:
323:
318:
316:
310:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
286:
283:
280:
278:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
246:
242:
227:
223:
217:
214:
213:
210:
193:
189:
185:
184:
176:
175:Poland portal
165:
163:
160:
156:
155:
151:
145:
142:
139:
135:
130:
126:
120:
112:
108:
103:
102:
90:
88:
87:
83:
80:
76:
75:
71:
69:
68:
64:
61:
57:
56:
52:
50:
49:
45:
42:
41:June 25, 2009
38:
37:
33:
30:
27:
26:
21:
17:
526:
519:
515:
511:
492:
471:
460:
453:
449:
447:
434:
430:
391:
355:
329:
322:does in fact
321:
314:
290:
221:
181:
125:WikiProjects
84:
65:
46:
472:not knowing
115:Start-class
542:Categories
493:Poeticbent
373:WP, IMHO.
330:challenged
72:Overturned
520:spieprzać
454:literally
508:WP:SYNTH
413:Malick78
398:Polish29
375:Malick78
341:Malick78
276:source.
224:on the
53:Deleted
31:Process
197:Poland
188:Poland
144:Poland
121:scale.
34:Result
525:: -->
484:here,
480:here,
459:: -->
433:: -->
360:radek
293:radek
516:real
498:talk
488:here
450:real
417:talk
402:talk
379:talk
364:talk
345:talk
337:bold
297:talk
91:Kept
28:Date
512:the
486:or
482:or
394:AfD
216:Low
544::
419:)
404:)
381:)
366:)
347:)
317:."
299:)
527:t
461:t
435:t
415:(
400:(
377:(
362:(
343:(
295:(
228:.
127::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
