User talk:Greg park avenue

Consultation
Well, sory that I'm anserwing so late, but I had some job to do.

Most of ammonium in human organism comes from degradation of most of aminoacids (exactly in α position), exept lysine, threonine, proline and hydroxyproline. Im process called transamination - moving α-amino groups from aminoacid to α-ketoglutarate by enzymes ALAT or AspAT. Then L-glutamate (created after joining α-ketoglutarate and α-amino groups) is transported to liver, where another enzyme - glutamate dehydrogenase, transforms α-amino group to ammonium, which enters to urea cycle. In human organism ammonium is only transformed to urea.

As for depression, critical point is not adrenaline but serotonin. Also depression it self is not cause of neoplasia. It is rather co-factor that make easier to development of neoplasia casused by depression of immune system.

And as for simillarity of symtomatology of neoplasm and postradiation disease, I'm not revelant in here because my job is to find differences between them ;) I've also wanted to point, that leukemia is type of cancer (in Polish equivalent of cancer is nowotwór złośliwy, English equivalent of our rak is carcinoma).

Well for now thats all :) Radomil talk 22:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Too late... I'm on 6th year :) Radomil talk 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No może łatwiej bedzie sie dogadać jak będę pisał po polsku :)

Abstahując od kwestii pochodzenia amoniaku w organizmie, oraz jego skutecznosci w eliminacji metali ciężkich. Eliminacja czynników wywołujących nowotwór nie spowoduje wyleczenia. W momencie gdy nowotwór już istnieje, rozwija się on autonomicznie (carcinogenesis). Wówczas konieczne jest niszczenie samych komórek nowotwórowych. Zaś samo podawanie amoniaku moze mieć poważne skutki (Hyperammonemia). Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Carcinogeneza z zimną fuzja nie ma nic wspólnego. Carcinogeneza to w gruncie rzeczy seria mutacji, (mutation). Mutację mogą wywołać zarówno czynniki fizyczne (promieniowanie jonizujące, ale i ultrafioletowe), czysto chemiczne (tu bym raczej podejrzewał rolę cyny, być może - choć nie mam danych o jej działaniu, wypiera ona odgrywający ważną rolę w replikacji DNA cynk (Zinc finger), po czysto biologiczne np. wirusy, które do genomu gospodarza wbudowuja własne geny (np. HPV), które uwalniają kaskadę prowadzącą no nowotworzenia. Jednak w którem z mechanizmów cyna miała by być rakotwórcxa - nie wiem.

Co do zwalczania przyczyny. Posługując się analogią z wirusami, choć może lepiej bakteriami - antybiotyki są skuteczniejsze.. Przyczyna choroby nowotworowej jest obecnosć tkanki nowotworowej. Zwalczamy zatem komórki nowotworowe (chemioterapią, radioterapią, metodami chirurgicznymi). Jest to działanie identyczne z podawaniem antybiotyku zabijającego komórki bakteryjne. Proponowana przez ciebie idea leczenia byłaby odpowiednikiem nakazania noszenia maski na twarz osobie która zaraziła cię anginą, aby na ciebie więcej nie kichała. Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 13:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mundana300pixel.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Mundana300pixel.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 21:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mundana300pixel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mundana300pixel.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your question on Media copyright questions
I have replied to your question at Media copyright questions. The short version is that the permission you received is insufficient for Wikipedia - the copyright holder needs to agree to release the image under the GFDL for us to use it. -- BigDT ( 416 ) 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mundana Quartet
MECU has checked in the OTRS system, confirmed the permission, and added the appropriate message to the image. So everything is good from that standpoint. --BigDT 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD ?
Sorry for us who live in the antipodes, your comments in the AfD discussion on Australian newsreaders don't make sense. Nobody is suggesting Coletta is guilty of anything and I fail to see the relvance of broadband--Golden Wattle talk 21:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (an obviously humourless Australian)

J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey up for new deletion debate
As a commentor in the Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey debate, I thought you might want to know that the debate has been re-started at Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey (2nd nomination) because of significant changes in the article during the debate. Mango juice talk 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Raveau
I can never get footnotes to work right, that's why I did the inline cite like I did. Sorry. Corvus cornix 22:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

al-Durrah
Hi Greg,

We actually have an entire section dedicated to that controversy. Of course if you feel that anything is missing, do expand it. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 05:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, and I thought I was the only kid on the block who had figured it out. I think about expanding the article, though I don't promise nothing. Got an alibi, been 6000 miles away when it happened. See ya around. greg park avenue 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
It was very kind of you to grant me a barnstar and also leave your enlightening note about how a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. :) I agree. I hope one day we get to share that dream.  T i a m a t  12:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Someday this dream will come true and the small town sheriff will be shot (the metaphor borrowed from Bob Marley's lyrics meaning using guitars rather than shotguns). It happened once in the sixties, it will happen again. And thank you for the outstanding performance at Wikipedia, way above the standard. greg park avenue 15:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I love Marley. There was a place in Nazareth that used to play his music between Arabic tunes all the time. It closed down, but the spirit that built it lives on. Here's hoping. And thanks again for the gracious compliment.  T i a m a t  09:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for loving Bob (and I hope Rita too) Marley. greg park avenue 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your recent post
I understand that the "Allegations of apartheid" series has everyone on edge and worked up. But please stay on topic and don't veer into comments like this one. Article talk pages are areas to work toward consensus; your comment is only going to be perceived as nationalistic, offensive, and off-topic and won't advance that goal. MastCell Talk 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There was nothing against French editors in my comment mentioned above and in the quote taken out of context posted on the notice board by a User:NicDumZ. All my comment dealt with the topic supplied by the editor of the previous comment I was responding to, which suggested that French people are better people than American people, referring to gun control laws, living in communities, and dealing with religion and customs of the minorities, etc. Anybody who knows a bit English will know that all "you"s meant French in general, not the editor in person. Besides, there never was any anti-French movement in America except a little sarcasm, but there was a lot of anti-American movements, protests and sentiments expressed in France since the DeGaulle times, and here we got another example in form of this baseless accusation of French bashing. greg park avenue 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Move notification
I moved your temporary work page on apartheid to Talk:History of South Africa in the Apartheid era/Temp because subpages are disabled in the mainspace. See Subpages and the move reason. Cheers!--Chaser - T 15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Brainwashing 101
As you participated in Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101, I am notifying you of Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101 (2nd nomination). - Crockspot 05:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tuesday the Rabbi Saw Red
Hi Greg. Harry Kemelman here. No, just me. :)  I'm sorry again about what happened with my moving your comment to the subsequent section. Anyway, here's a quick note I hope you'll realize is intended in a friendly way. Your recent rebuttals on Talk:AoIA sound rather intense and angry. I would recommend that you back off, maybe even strikeout some of wording. Folks are objecting to your RM, they are having trouble assuming your good faith, and they are concerned that you are acting like a  troll, i.e., misusing the wikipedia process and disrupting the community. They have a strong point, since polls and RMs should not be launched one after another. Rather than get defensive, either about processing the RM or its substantive merits, I'd suggest a more conciliatory tone. (Indeed, the initial response you made, the one I moved, was diplomatic. Sorry again!) If it were me, I'd either withdraw the proposal (as I did with my own straw poll effort, as you recall) or reiterate my sincerity and express regret for the perceived disruption. Something along those lines would strengthen your credibility and demonstrate your flexibility and responsiveness to folks' concerns. Well, it's up to you. I think you have alot to contribute and don't want to have this incident sour things for you. Take care. HG | Talk 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi HG, welcome to my page. I guess you're talking about John, but he didn't accused me directly of trolling. If he did, I would have to respond. So I kept my head cool and chose to ignore his message between lines.
 * Concerning RM: I don't understand why a poll shouldn't be followed by requested move? Jossi did that after even quicker poll than mine (only three votes) and no one complained.
 * Regardinging disruption issue: The score is about 7:7 like in NFL, if one included the poll, which should be done at closing - as it was done at Jossi's RM closing - so where the disruption is? It only means no consensus and nothing else.
 * Regarding good faith issue: All right, there will be no status quo anyway on this one, so I'll move to dismiss this RM and go all over my posts on that page again to check if something might sound offensive to someone, and if I find it I strike it.
 * Hirsh (the guy who couldn't be buried in Jewish cemetery, because he converted, but the Rabbi Small in the "Saturday" sequel found a compromise - I wish we could find one either. greg park avenue 15:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Greg, thanks for your responsiveness. Will you mark the section as withdrawn? Anyway, yes, it was John Nagle, who I also contacted. In the meantime, I've worked on something I feel I should inform you about. It's concerns the merits of further discussion of title. Let me know on my Talk if you suggest revisions. Best wishes, HG | Talk 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Greg, hi. It feels like your latest comment ridicules my ideas. I can appreciate that you disagreement, but would you mind rephrasing it in a more straightforward and less sarcastic, put-down, manner? I'd appreciate it. HG | Talk 15:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, HG. Not at all. I disagree only with the current title. If you can manage to change that into one of your proposed subheadings, you got my blessing. Actually, that's exactly what I have been trying to do in preceding weeks - remove "allegations" to get rid of all that propaganda and meaningless accusations made by non-notable individuals inserted into this article. Now, the proposed article structure is amazing, no one will complain I believe, but chances of changing the title are close to nil; that's where sarcasm came from. Those who want to delete the article will always be against that. Maybe only the mighty ArbCom can do that, but you'll never know until you try. So, good luck. I already exhausted my yearly limit on posting RMs just on this one. greg park avenue 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate
But true. Check also Operation Wilno and its talk page... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. The trollwarning was in direct response to the three editors who went personal and accused the creator of the articles in question to create also this disambiguation page, which I find logically consistent and done in good faith just to ensure better transparency and to make search easier. There is no better term than "Operation Wilno". If it was I would suggest, but I can't think of one. It appears that they just don't like no Polish names no more, as Halibutt says. Hopefully a merciful admin will emerge soon and end this sorry struggle for everybody's benefit. greg park avenue 17:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD
There was not consensus to keep the article, if you would like to overturn the deletion, please file an appeal at deletion review; it will be reconsidered. Thanks. Keilana talk(recall) 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll open a deletion review myself if you want, I'm not willing to unilaterally overturn it. Keilana talk(recall) 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, whatever you wish. Thanks for your concern and comments; I appreciate them. Regards, Keilana talk(recall) 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Zbigniew Zakrzewski (economist)
Hi, could you add reference to this addition? Greets, Visor (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Visor, I just added one of them, see here. Thanks for advise. greg park avenue (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know. It's not a 3rd party ref at all and there is no direct reference to that school but let it stay :) Thanks. Visor (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD
I noticed you cast your vote here on Sunday and was wondering if you'd be interested in helping User:Gordonofcartoon with his requests for translation from Polish posted in Talk. Both of them are tucked in behind long, drawn-out speeches and are easy to miss, here and here. Your vote of support might convince the nominator about your genuine interest in helping him through with your accurate translation from our native language. --Poeticbent talk  16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The word by word translation of the requested text you can find right here. greg park avenue (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. Now would you please do the same about the first request for translation at Talk by User:Gordonofcartoon. It refers to a third party reference cached by http://web.archive.org/ in 2002 from an early version of a small biographical webpage (stripped of diacritics in the process) at Wydawnictwo Nowy Świat. Sincerely --Poeticbent talk  18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're talking about this - a low budget paper edited in Polish language "Strumien" in West Canada? If so there is not much to translate (they even didn't bother to print that in English) - they just explained in an introduction "About us" that they publish once a year promising poetry samples by Polish immigrants, they depend on sponsors meaning, you know, those who place small ads like help wanted or for rent. Many Polonia press are like this, the most known is Nowy Dziennik in New York. Still, not reliable as a source. Know it from autopsy, sent them once some original research regarding cancer, Sargasso Sea and some others, they printed it all and would print anything save for fiction manuscripts, but no reader took serious notice of it and entered a discussion which I was hoping to introduct. After that I let it go. If you are a poet, write it on a wall, take a picture of it and send it to the New York Times. If this is a joke, send it to the Reader's Digest please, not to Wikipedia. greg park avenue (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but that was not the text I meant last time. What I asked you about was the archived webpage cached from Wydawnictwo Nowy Swiat. You can read it being copied to the article Talk page here a few minutes ago. Thanks --Poeticbent talk  22:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Wydawnictwo Nowy Świat. is just sweepstakes for kids. Kids or so called writers for kids like Agnieszka Osiecka send their stories to enter a contest. Some of them, selected ones, receive a prize, a teddy bear or something like that. No serious storyteller for kids like Edmund Niziurski would ever enter this enterprise. greg park avenue (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your partial translation. Speaking of Nowy Swiat, I find the sweepstakes for kids are a good way for a publishing house to entice a next generation of its followers. But please take a look at the list of 148 authors published there. Among them: Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Georg Heym, Krzysztof Karasek, Julian Kornhauser, Joanna Kulmowa, Bogdan Loebl, Eduard Morike, Emile Nelligan, Yehuda Nir, Agnieszka Osiecka, Daniel Passent, Jan Pietrzak, Krystiana Robb-Narbutt, Omar Sangare, Alek Silber, Leszek Szaruga, Jan Piotr Ursyn, Elżbieta Zelenay and many, many others. I'm hoping you'll finish your translation in the next round. Please consider substituting the following words in the first part of your translation: Thanks again. Your input means a lot to me. --Poeticbent talk  00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) poem collections → poetry collections
 * 2) as college student → during university studies
 * 3) as outcast → as a defector
 * 4) Indian culture → Native Indian culture
 * 5) West Canada → Western Canada


 * You just mistook regular book publications for sweepstakes you have previously referred to regarding Tylman - Wydawnictwo Nowy Świat.. Besides, Goethe died in 1832 long before this publishing house was even established. And sorry for my poor translation. I already did the second part and I guess my ESL hasn't improved a bit. Next time, I recommend to translate such buttery butter all by yourself. Regards greg park avenue (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I respect your right to your own opinion. That’s why I approached you first about your knowledge of both Polish and English following your AfD vote. However, I will not be translating anything myself anymore because of the conflict of interest. – Nice article you wrote about Edmund Niziurski. We need more of those around here. --Poeticbent talk  02:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So why didn't you write this autobiography just like that? Three good references if there are any will do. And keep it short and to the point. You can start with: "Ryszard Tylman, born in 1952 in Poland, Polish-Canadian painter and self made poet, the graduate od Cracow Academy of Fine Arts, with a group of Polish sailors defected in 1982 to the West Coast of Canada during the martial law ...". Skip such idioms as "professional artist" or "ethical and philosophical views". Otherwise, I'd recommend to read The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe. Regards greg park avenue (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This, I think, is the crux of the problem. We have a painter and commercial artist who, as far as I can tell, is active on the niche literary zine, self-publishing and artsfest circuit. All that's perfectly creditable, but the article comes on like he's Balthus. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg park avenue, first, please do not introduce false information about me. If you cared to read the references provided, you’d know I’m not a sailor and did not jump ship. I came to North America on a plane from Italy. On a separate note, everybody claims to be an artist these days. However, “professional artist” refers to someone making a living in the field. These are no flowery idioms. You seem to want the article to be short, while in fact, a good article by our standards is many times bigger than a stub. All writings about artists and literary characters are different from your usual engineers' biographies unless they’re about inventors (artists of sorts no doubt). Why are you so concerned with what’s proper at the other end of the spectrum, while in fact you’re not an artsy type by any means. And Gordonofcartoon, I wish I could assume your objectivity in this case, but wasn't that you who nominated the article to AfD in the first place? --Poeticbent talk  01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was just a sample how an article with weak references should properly be written. And "defector" is your invention, not mine - see your comment above about my language skills. Now, why weak references? The review by publisher is just a blurb as Gordon already pointed out. According to the house rules of Nowy Swiat, the author of manuscript must supply also an info about himself, so the review is based on just that. You need an independent, third party review or two. The reference to the book is enough, add one or two independent reviews by more or less prestigious press, and that's it. This publisher is just too small (circulation unknown, no known distribiution to the bookstores, sales by internet only) to even issue a competent review anyway; it's even against their policy as stated in their rules. They just publish the manuscript or not, and any editor's notes on the book cover is just an advertisement. But it is still good as reference if it wasn't cluttered with unnecessary trash, which you article is overloaded with. Regards greg park avenue (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Any serious book reader knows that books written by living people anywhere from Warsaw to Shanghai (including those with massive circulation) feature biographies submitted to publishers originally by their own authors. Are you naïve enough to believe that even Nobel laureates don’t write about themselves for the publishers of their own books? Luckily, you’re not our usual Wikipedia student turned expert in writing “teenage encyclopedia.” You may not have noticed that some of the best coverage in this portal is given to female porn stars. However, you might be interested in taking a look at articles on most likely pedophiliacs like Bathus and pornographers like Kosinski, to see what kind of references are used in there including obscure blogs and anonymous “free for all” webpages courtesy of Angelfire glorifying their achievements. I don’t expect you to like me, in fact, Wikipedia is overrun by angry souls hiding behind pseudonyms and stabbing in the dark, but I’m stunned at how far-fetched and low-brow are some of your statements given your age and stature. Koty marcowe (Sieć:  Wyniki) were available in major brick-and-mortar bookstores throughout Poland upon its publication in 2002. That's good enough for me as a volunteer editor appreciated by others. I haven't noticed any signs of trash in there and would rather stop this exchange right here. --Poeticbent  talk  17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article about Jerzy Kosinski - the lost poet, has many valid reviews in its refs including New York Times Magazine. Maybe he was even a pornographer. I don't know about it and I wouldn't care; he didn't write article about himself in Wikipedia. Someone else did. This is an encyclopedic entry, not an estimate of one's ethical or moral views or actions! Writing about oneself is very dangerous, easy to get caught in one's own trap. You're very good Wikipedian with several barnstars, and should know better than writing opinions of yourself like that. Try this: ask someone with authority in Polish/English Wikipedia like User:Piotrus to rewrite your article for you. I am sure he will comply. Or User:Elonka Dunin. She owes me. I introduced the article about her into Polish Wiki and she never even acknowledged that - that's the proper attitude for a Wikipedian. Regards greg park avenue (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reasonable idea. However, I think we shouldn't buy into the argument that only editors of some specific background can judge the material. As you say of Kosinski, if someone genuinely is "acclaimed" in the usual meaning of the term - widespread critical acclaim - it tends to spill outside any cultural or language niche, and be visible in (say) the mainstream literary press (the UK equivalent would be getting into Granta, or being mentioned in the Times Literary Supplement or Guardian Books). Nor does it take any great knowledge to assess the likely merit and/or scale of a publication. Nowadays, quality of web presence is a pretty good pointer, and the bizarre graphics-only construction of the Strumien site at rocznik.strumien.pacak-gamalski.com doesn't bode well. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have explicitly explained your point in the AfD nomination, Gordon, so I voted accordingly to delete, not even knowing then that the subject and the author of this article in question is the same person. And on the top of this mess, as it showed up in the follow-up, he became a fellow immigrant, somebody who most English/Polish speaking Wikipedians, who are also immigrants I guess, would abstain to vote against, except in case of obvious fraud, which such case doesn't apply here. I would do that (abstain) too, but once Wikipedian always Wikipedian; now is to late for me to back off. So, following Johnbod advice, I would suggest to appeal to the above mentioned editors of Polish background, also administrators of English Wikipedia, to take a stand. greg park avenue (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in the People's Republic of China/Temporary
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Human rights in the People's Republic of China/Temporary, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Human rights in the People's Republic of China/Temporary. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Human rights in the People's Republic of China/Temporary
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you and John for advise, but I am not following this article anymore and won't take any action since this area of expertise is far beyond my knowledge. I have created this page trying to help User:Ideogram with his struggle with an article and its AfD called previously "Allegations of apartheid in the People's Republic of China" or something like that, but he had obviously abandoned the idea of improving it ever since, so I understand this page has died by natural causes. Sicerely yours greg park avenue (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Robespierre
Any associations with the past must be an opinion of a reputed researcher in the area. I myself may draw parallels of commuist propaganda with teching of Jesus Christ, but I am not adding it to the article, because this is not how wikipedia works. Robespierre's Commune and communism are related but not the same. `'Míkka>t 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

AfDs?
Since you are also interested in Poland related deletions, check the few articles I notified Visor of: User_talk:Visor.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * T-factor is an obvious bullshit. F-sharp minor (fis-moll) by Chopin: never heard of, but we can deal with that if it comes to AfD. Also, never heard of Codeminion - actually, never played a computer game either - and will gladly support a project to remove all articles relating to computer games from Wikipedia once and for all, if it ever comes to that - pure waste of time and space and bytes - I think they should be prohibited for sale to minors under age 21 as the alkoholic beveregas are, drugs notwithstanding. greg park avenue (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008

(UTC)
 * Don't bother with Chopin. I just have inserted proper reference. greg park avenue (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bellon01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bellon01.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bellon01.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Bellon01.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Waiting for requested information. Give it a couple days or so. All I know for now the picture is from 1985 or older. Belon died in 1985. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added description based on this site: (don't see a reason why it's blacklisted) explaining that this picture was previously archived by Polish Mountain Voluntary Emergency Service meaning it's a property of the former People's Republic of Poland. greg park avenue (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page usage
Please refrain from using this talk page to launch tangents regarding sources or policy with which you are completely unfamiliar. If you have any questions about WP policy or particular sources, you can ask on my talk page. You are taking up a great deal of everyone's time with these lengthy asides, and it's becoming increasingly clear that either you have little knowledge about what you are talking about or you are unable to clearly communicate your points. I'm sure you are well-intentioned, but please I suggest you limit yourself to subjects with which you are familiar instead of launching verbose broadsides against sources and policies of which you are unfamiliar. I hope you do not find this message offensive, as it is not my intent to offend, but merely to get you to see that you are sidetracking the discussion in a major way. Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * About WP policy you might be right. But I am familiar with Polish affairs since I speak Polish on near native level, and with Jewish affairs too, since half of Israel speaks Polish. Sorry for my comments on Talk Page Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, will refrain from additional comments over there, until new and more solid references will be supplied. For now, I think we have exhausted the topic. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions
I think we can move the article to the "during" version; please note there is still no consensus on any other changes, including Lithuanian (although I think this will pass, too).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead! greg park avenue (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for your support during the block. Best wishes. --Molobo (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it! greg park avenue (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning for WP:Civil violation
Regarding this edit summary: please note, characterizing other editors as engaging in vandalism or trolling is a violation of WP:Civil. Please refer to this section and make an effort to moderate your aggressive behavior. Thank you. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Excerpt from the WP:Civil: - Comment on the actions and not the editor - that's what I just did in that edit summary you have so kindly provided link to above. Have a nice day! greg park avenue (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Second warning for WP:Civil violation
The threatening, belligerent and inappropriate comments and edit summaries such as this and this can lead to you getting blocked from editing Wikipedia. You really need to stop.Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand what possibly you could find offensive or treatening in these comments of mine. Brook means Brooklyn in North Carolina slang, Know what I mean is a Newark, NJ, slang. For the record: I was a member of a street gang back in 1960's on Szamarzewskiego Street, Poznan, Poland, which was our kind of self-defense against the from the dark side of the moon teachers, just as in that Pink Floyd song Teachers!, leave us kids alone! or Another brick in the wall. It was more like the Apple Dumpling Gang than even the Magnificent Seven. No one got hurt except for some pedophile teachers from school who forgot they ain't got no more in the Prussian Army but in the 60's co-ed no 71. Some day I would love to write a Wikipedia article about this, but not yet. It's like old X-KGB files, which must lay down for 50 years or so until the truth will be told. Slow down with this RVs, it may get you inside the slummer again, as it got James Dean in that old Rio Bravo (movie). Besides, it was my nickname in the grade school - Rio meant the guy who got the beating in the face meaning ryj in Polish, Bravo meant everyone around clapped the hands and yelled brawo in Polish or something like ole in Spanish, but it never happened, rather the other way around. Now, after all these years, I am a nice former college boy as most of my friends are and we don't mean any harm to anybody. Trying to be nice, but after you decide to send me the third warning regarding civility I gonna be a pain in the ass like Shakira's Don't Bother or maybe even worse, what about something from Mariah Carey repertoire? Nice day! greg park avenue (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete reliably sourced infomation
just because you don't like it, as you did here. Use the talk page if you have an issue with a source. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right to remove that source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, historical articles need original records/sources, not some new found revelations by trendy new publishers, especially in the lead. And for the record, before you introduce this trash into an historical article again, please, introduce this proposal first to the discussion section, not the other way around. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, if you dont know the difference between a reliable source and a "trendy new publisher," there's no point discussing this with you. I dont need to discuss introducing reliably sourced info on the talk page, however you DO need to discuss deleting it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

 * Thanks a lot for kindly supplying this message and taking care for the article in question, which I thought was beyond salvation (protected). Give me 10-20 minutes to respond. greg park avenue (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardin your edit
Please could you clarify what did you mean by "communist propaganda cannot beat the Yale", and how does it relate with the material that is referenced by Arūnas Bubnys publications--Lokyz (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholarly references outweigh other sources as per WP:V and WP:N, especially in historical articles. The content based on Arūnas Bubnys looks like original research. It should be corroborated by other educational institutions. But I didn't even remove that, just restored the Yale ref. greg park avenue (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GG
Feel free to drop me a line on Gadu-Gadu one of those days! :) My contact info is on my userpage.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RfArb statement
I don't think Malik is Boody's puppet. He erred once, giving him the barnstar at the same time Boody was sending "dick" emails, but otherwise my interactions with Malik were positive. I strongly recommend WP:AGF when possible.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence
Hello Greg park avenue. I'm a little concerned about this edit you made to the above evidence. The particular part that concerned me was as follows; "I don't bother with our Lithuanian friends - they were pals or allies of us polacks since centuries - we always get along and will find common ground, mind just Boody and his obvious supporters/sockpuppets who seem to play Jew but they don't sound like that." Now, we give a lot of space for contributors to air their views on arbitration pages, but this was clearly antisemitic. As clerk for the case, please can I ask you to refactor it, or I'll have to do it for you. Best regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. Boodlesthecat is known for his rabidly antipolish stance, he sees all Poles as antisemites, and yet everyone turns a blind eye. Seems like it is OK to defame whatever is connected with Poland, it is OK to call Greg an antisemitic troll, while Boodlesthecat is clearly an antipolish troll, and yet this seems to be cool with some people here. Greg has some thoughts on it, and he has just shared them. What is wrong with it? Greetings. Tymek (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tymek, kindly supply a diff indicating where I "see all Poles as antisemites." If you can't produce such a diff, then please refactor your defamatory comments above. thank you. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, I refactor this, and I apologize if I hurt someone's feelings, however, it was unintentional. I don't understand how my comment might be found clearly anti-semitic, when there is no slightest inclination User Boodlesthecat is of Jewish descent? It's him who calls his adversaries anti-semitic, which remark is clearly racial, since the term "Semite"pertains to race, but that doesn't make him Jewish. Few samples:, , . Half of his edits or rather reverts doesn't deal with Jewish affairs but also with other minorities - mostly African-Americans, and these are equally disruptive, as an example see this one in Al Sharpton article - where he removed very well sourced by notable USA Today material. That's the problem with sockpuppets. They try to fit into stereotype profile, assuming incorrectly a plumber wants to talk about nothing else but pipes, a postman about poststamps and a Jew about anti-semitism. But the real people are more sophisticated than that and a rabbi or a civil right movement activist responds to politically incorrect gaffe by witty remark, not by screaming bloody murder with abusive and rude remarks. Such attitude was more adequate to political leaders of Soviet Union and other East Block countries, as in the role of the attache of Soviet Embassy in Mexico in the movie The Falcon and the Snowman. That role would fit Boody, not the one his playing now. It's even abusive to Jewish editors, but I think they just ignore it. greg park avenue (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Greg, some of the edit diffs you provide do not seem to support any relevant point - Boodles deleted comments made by a banned user. Also, I do not see what difference it makes what Boodles' race is: a white person can oppose racism against Blacks or against Jews.  The issue at hand is your suggesting someone is "playing the Jew" which is patently offensive.  I am willing to wait to for more evidence to see if you are really an anti-Semite, but let's say you aren't: your comment remains inappropriate and uncivil.  If an editor makes an edit to an article, the only question is, was the edit compliant with our content policies and well-written?  If an editor makes a comment on a talk page, the only question is, does the comment help move towards an improvement in the article, either by raising an important issue, clarifying something, adding important facts, raising questions about the policy-compliance of article contents, etc.  You can discuss all of this without suggesting that someone is or is not a Jew, and suggesting that someone is "playing the Jew" is just an ad hominem attack.  If you do not understand what I have just written, I am sorry to say you are likely in for a lot more conflict, because most Wikipedians won't tolerate people using this encyclopedia to race-bait.  And if you really just care aboout the quality of articles, you wouldn't stoop to race-baiting.  WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and the kind of research that these policies call for, is all you need to contribute to the article and know that your contributions will stick. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 06:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already apologized to sensitive people as you, so this remark about "race-baiting" is superfluous. If I used the phrase "playing the Palestinian" you wouldn't probably object, even if Palestinians belong to the same semitic race as the Jews. Same about "playing the American" even if Americans are multi-race community. I believe all people are equal, that's why I support one-state Israel/Palestine as you can see on my user page. You may believe some words are holy as "Lord" in Second Commandment and should be used only in reverence, but don't expect me to believe in that crap and save your sermon for someone who wants to hear just that. You're shopping in the wrong store. greg park avenue (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Greg, please consult our WP:AGF standards, because you ought to be taking what I wrote in good faith. You have just in effect declared - and this is only our first interaction - that you will not comply with our WP:AGF policy. You are refusing to assume good faith when you say I am "sensitive" - what I wrote was about policy, not about my own sensitivities.  Also, you did not apologize to me, but then again, I did not ask you to apologize to me and I do not know why you insist on making this personal unless it is just a function of your refusal to WP:AGF.  You also show contempt for WP:AGF when you put words in my mouth, so to speak, when you write "If I used the phrase "playing the Palestinian" you wouldn't probably object."  What did I ever write that suggested I would not object?  I ask you to tell me why I would not object to this.  You have made an accusation against me, now back it up with some evidence or reasoning.  Why di dyou write this about me?  You also write "You may believe some words are holy as "Lord" in Second Commandment and should be used only in reverence."  Why do you write this?  Why do you think I believe such words are holy?  "but don't expect me to believe in that crap" - but I never wrote that I expect you to believe in that "crap."  So why did you write what you wrote?


 * Greg, I wrote a lot of things that have to do with Wikipedia being an encyclopedial, and Wikipedia policy, and you have not responded to anything I wrote. Greg, please comply with WP:AGF and respond to what I wrote.


 * Greg, instead of responding to what I wrote, you made five claims about what I think. Greg, please comply with WP:AGF and do me the courtesy of explaining why you believe I believe or think these five things.  Thank you, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You never give up guys, huh? One has accused me at least 20 times of being an anti-semite - the most serious charge based on citing by me Jewish intelectuals including one writer from a Jewish website run by a notable entrepreneur Luke Ford -, the other of being a racist, just like that out of the blue and twice in his very first post to me - and based on what - on three words phrase about someone "playing the Jew" - for which I have already apologized. Actually, I should ignore your first comment. Next time, if you want accuse someone of rasism, go straight to the proper page - administrator's noticeboard or something, just make sure you guys have better diffs to prove your point than that. And one more thing, Mister, my talk page is not a place for rubbish, playing fool, trolling and insults. From now on any comment posted by you here will be ignored, just as the edits posted by your pal Boody are ignored since at least a month. greg park avenue (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg, it is not right to make accusations against someone without providing any evidence or reasoning. I am assuming good faith by assuming you have reasons.  Can you please just tell me what it is about me that led you to believe that I thought the things you accused me of thinking?  I do not understand the above comment you made as I did not acuse you of anti-Semitism or of racism ... your comment seems to be a non-sequitor.  If there is some logic to it, I just want to understand the logic and am politicely asking you to explain it to me.


 * Above, you wrote "If I used the phrase "playing the Palestinian" you wouldn't probably object." You also wrote, "You may believe some words are holy as "Lord" in Second Commandment and should be used only in reverence." I never said these things, but you believe that I think them.  Please, just explain to me what it is about me that makes you think I believe these things? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it.
Personal exchanges serve no purpose. Just focus on creating content. The more you deal with personal exchanges the more it will drag you down.I did this also but now see that it has nor real worth. It's better to write articles.--Molobo (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a good advice. Discuss content, not editors or their motivations. Most people edit in good faith, some get carried away. You yourself have gotten carried away and said some things that should not have been said. I suggest keeping cool all the time, and creating content - we are here to build an encyclopedia, not convince other editors of a perceived error in their ways.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is good advice only if you have something to hide. I do not understand why you would write "mind just Boody and his obvious supporters/sockpuppets who seem to play Jew" in which "the Jew" sounds like an insult.  What did you mean by that.  Also, you still have not explained to me why you wrote "If I used the phrase "playing the Palestinian" you wouldn't probably object." You also wrote, "You may believe some words are holy as "Lord" in Second Commandment and should be used only in reverence," given that I never said any such thing.  Since I never expressed these views, why do you think I have them?  Why did you write them? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppetry User:Boodlesthecat = User:Malik Shabazz
I don't really think this is the case, users can agree with each other and not being sockpuppets. I suggest you file a request similar to the one here, and when it proves they are not socks, you strike out your accusations and apologize. Remember: it takes a great man to admit that he was wrong.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg, I seriously recommend that you remove that silly post, and save yourself even further embarrassment. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not here off to get somebody. Never filed any complain against anybody in my life - not my department. I am here for the defense and don't have to prove you're not guilty. They must prove it, and they must do it beyond reasonable doubt. So far, they do miserable job, but you need some points to provide the doubt, which I think one I have supplied. greg park avenue (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Greg, I'd highly recommend that in the workshop I linked above, you add a motion cleaning your name of the antisemitism accusation. From my past experience with arbcom, they are likely to ignore it altogether, which will mean that that they think it is bogus and not worth addressing - but will also let others to repeat it over and over. If the committee clearly says its untrue, you will have your good name saved that way. Otherwise, it's a mud ball that will stick.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The same thing, Piotrus. They must prove I am anti-Semite, not me that I am not guilty. It would even look bad if I was was excusing myself from such a preposterous claim. I stay with Ryan's advise on this one - ignore the trolls, and don't see how a mud ball delivered by one person would stick. greg park avenue (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * greg, are you saying that Malik and I are the same person? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * greg, are you saying that Boodles and I are the same person? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest
I have refactored your comment here. Next time you lose it like this, somebody WILL block you for personal attacks, and I won't object. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OKI, boss. After being 5 hours on a highway in rain, I did it my way (thank God I didn't add grow up, get crew cut and real job). Thanks for refactoring. Looks better now. greg park avenue (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
 * Should resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
 * is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * Should make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
 * is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.
 * Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.
 * Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:
 * (A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;
 * (B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and
 * (C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.


 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Please see the above link to read the full case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

 Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that I've blocked this account for 1 year as enforcement of the above remedy.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You and Good Bye note
This Sunday editor wishes to thank the Community for support or at least for a vote against banning him during the Arbitration Committee proceedings #Piotrus2, and in particular User:Piotrus, User:Vecrumba, User:Poeticbent, User:Biophys, User:Lysy, User:Radeksz, User:Tymek, User:Jacurek, User:Martintg, User:Alex Bakharev, User:Nihil novi, User:Biruitorul, User:Ecoleetage, User:Molobo, and User:Durova for free offer of mentorship. Sorry if I missed someone. It's a pity the Committee ignored this voice, instead, they gave their full and undisputed attention to the one editor, User:Boodlesthecat, with long history of blocks, disruptions and personal attacks including hate mail, but that's their preference, about which a have a few words of comment explaining why I have to say good bye to this project, once and for all. 1. The ArbCom supposed to be the last resort to appeal for arbitration, not the first, and a claim coming from a notorious edit warrior User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, who even advocates sockpuppetry to win such war, on the basis of his conspracy theory of Polish cabal chauvinists may appeal to the mentality of the User:Malik Shabazz, see , not to the ArbCom. This frivolous claim supposed to be dismissed in the first motion as Piotrus suggested, not to be dwelled on. Besides, the theory didn't work and no conspiracy plot was ever proven for the simple reason it doesn't exist.

2. For the same reason stated in 1. (last resort) my mistakes made eight months ago concerning minor BLP violations should be dealt on administrator level, not here. Somehow they were so minor, no administrator found it worthy to issue even a simple warning. For the record, I good-intentionally quoted opinions found on moderate Jewish blog about one Thane Rosenbaum, which, I see it now, was not appropriate in Wikipedia (it's like taking a poll), but by no means anti-semitic (how quoting Jewish website may be anti-semitic anyway?, beats me). Yet, this was blown out of proportion by Boodlesthecat and accepted as Gospel by the Committee. They even silently consented to Boodles' plastering the slogan I am anti-semite all over Wikipedia during this ArbCom proceedings or at lest didn't take the stand on this issue meaning they approved.

3. For the same reason as stated above in 1. and 2. (ArbCom as last resort) my inclusion of Boodlesthecat into this case was fully legitimate, because his disruptive activities were out of control for prolonged period of time. Even when banned someone protecting him always bailed him out, and the restrictions were never enforced. There is little doubt the current ban will last longer than after the dust settles in. Actually, a tremendous effort was undertaken during these proceedings on the part of the Committee, to bail him out, again against the wish of the Community; he was just one vote away to be back in business shortly, but I imagine it'll be easy to fix.

4. The Committee didn't have even decency to check validity of Boodlesthecat claims. For example, on top of banning me they issued an alternative remedy proposal to restrict me to 1RR per week without checking out I don't have any history in edit warring. See also these alleged BLP violations FoF #27 and FoF #29. Concerning #27, how a dead person Czeslaw Milosz may be a subject to BLP? However, he's a person and it could be an honest mistake, if not for the next one. Concerning #29, how an organization Anti-Defamation League could be a subject to Biography of Living People violation? But nine out of ten Arbitrators undersigned it as such. And now we're coming to the bottom of this problem which is discrimination on the basis of nationality or country of origin. Shakira's ancestry is Arabic, so no wonder ADL spreads rumors she's an antisemite. This case is about Eastern European editors, so the ArbCom had a field day to spread us with mud under false pretense of the existence of the Polish cabal plot, antisemitism etc, as much as possible. God only knows what they write about Irish, Italians, Hispanic or African-Americans, but I can imagine.

5. Outcome of the Arbcom #Piotrus2: Fact: Only Eastern European editors were humiliated by various restrictions with the best Polish editor Piotrus by the triple. Fact: All others were fully exonerated with occasional slap on wrist including the author of this bogus claim. Fact: No credit was given neither to Piotrus nor to Jacurek for creating the featured article History of the Jews in Poland, which was later degraded to non-status by disruptive activity of Malik Shabazz and Boodlesthecat (Piotrus created more than 10 featured articles), just vice versa, one of British Arbitrators credited him even with an epithet - a man of inferior intellect.

There is still the issue of double standards concerning the BLP violations. Polish scholars were often called anti-semites, even Piotrus pointed it out on Ryan's talk page lately, to which I referred few times during these proceedings, but the ArbCom didn't find nothing inappropriate in it. They already got to the inescapable conclusion Boodlesthecat/Malik Shabazz is always right, anybody else disagreeing with them is always wrong, including the Community of about 15 editors. I am the worst, because I dared to bring them to the attention of this Committee, which was probably a capital offense in this small circle of Arbitrators; that's why I am banned. Don't worry ArbCom; I won't bother you any more. For the reasons stated in 1. to 5. I am walking away from this nationalistic circus called English Wikipedia, and like a movie star I will never look back, doesn't matter how long this ban will last, one month, one year or twenty years. Know why? Because this project failed. It became a major source of disinformation KGB style, it became a safe haven for any sort of nationalists, but that's the result of anonymity. Encyclopedia cannot be run by hooded anonyms KKK style. Like in military, someone must be always held accountable, and that someone must have verifiable name. Not the minor editors like me (privates and nameless GI Joes) or even regular administrators (sergeants), but the arbitrators (senior officers) should have one. Otherwise we got what we got. A mess like in Wehrmacht 1943 - good soldiers run by a bunch of nationalistic zealots where one word of critique sent you to the Eastern Front (Fritz to Snatcher in "The Great Escape").

One more thing before I go. Poeticbent, thank you for tidying Howard J. Scott. Could you move it to Visions Metro Weekly for me? It needs a bit of more rewriting, just don't loose this phrase "Positive news for a change", please. Actually, the interim title of the newspaper was called ''Twin Visions. Positive News for a Change''. I am proud my last entry into Wikipedia contains something positive. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up
Greg, I am also shocked that the ArbCom overreacted in your case so much. Yes, the case could have been handled better, but I have to disagree with you that ArbCom was supporting a side. The ArbCom doesn't take sides; the problem is that it doesn't care much for the little editor (and it doesn't matter whether this editor is Jewish, Polish, Lithuanian or Zulu). The project, while indeed trampling over the little editors, like us, has still not failed yet. I hope that you will reconsider giving up on it and come back to help us out in the future. The Economist once wrote about Wikipedia, calling it "a force for good". It may not be perfect, but I still like to hope that this has not changed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope to see you back one day.--Jacurek (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, hope to see you back. Greetings and all the best. Tymek (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the mention. Although we hardly got to know each other, here's wishing the best. Perhaps under better circumstances things will work out better in the future. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a miscarriage of justice when a contributor who has caused Wikipedia slight inconvenience is banished while others who have brought the project endless torment are, with a single notable exception, given mere slaps on the wrist. Nihil novi (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland
WikiProject Poland has awarded you a status of a honorary member (you have never officially joined the project by signing on its front page...). Thank you for your Poland-related encyclopedic contributions! Please consider officially joining the project by moving yourself from the "Honorary members" list to the "Active members" list here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OFFER
Greg, I would like you to know you can try to take opportunity of WP:OFFER. You are eligible for it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Greg park avenue! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Edmund Niziurski -

Monitor. WikiProject Poland Newsletter: Issue 1 (April 2011)
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Visions Weekly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Visions Weekly.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , 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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We miss you!
On behalf of WPPOLAND - we hope to see you back with us again one day! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mundana300pixel.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mundana300pixel.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Bellon01.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bellon01.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jarekt (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC) --Jarekt (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carbine affair


The article Carbine affair has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Appears to be a rather unremarkable and non-notable event. We don't have a CSD for specific events, so I'm PRODding it."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ThePortaller (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)