User talk:Piotrus/Archive 25

GA review: Defense of Brest Fortress
Hi, I put on hold tag on the article. God willing, I'll add my review tonight.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I started reviewing the article, but do you really sure that it has reached GA criteria. My first review shows it has major problems. -- Seyyed(t-c) 16:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices.
Just a note to let you know that an image you uploaded is possibly a copyvio; see the FAC (Elcobbola's oppose, at the bottom). · AndonicO Engage. 22:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stupid me, I always forget that. :/ · AndonicO Engage. 01:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435)
Please add in-line refs to your additions. I marked them with fact. Thanks, Renata (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and note that one of the books is missing page numbers. Renata (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Russification of Congress Poland governorate names
Looks like all the articles were recently moved to their Russified names. Was there any discussion about this? The Russian names seem more obscure than the Polish ones, so I'd be in favour of moving them back.--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Which names are predominantly used in English academic works on the subject—Polish or Russian ones? I wouldn't know that, as I tend to work mostly with the Russian sources and would tend to use a Russian name myself.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

political society
dzięki za wsparcie. w przyszłośći dam tam mój tekst, tylko mi go niemcy opublikują. ukazał się wprawdzie w polsce, ale angielski tam użyty wymaga dużej cierpliwości. to mój pierwszy wkład w wiki i przyznam, że pierwszy kontakt nie jest zbyt pozytywny. polecam też zamieszanie w artykule o auschwitz.--Discourseur (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

podałem najbardziej źródłowe ze źródłowych prace. amerykanie mają jednak problem z ich rozumieniem, bo francuskie zwłaszcza nie są najlepiej przetłumaczone. na polskim wiki nic nie robiłem jeszcze, chociaż artykuł ukazał się w dużo bardziej rozbudowanej formie po polsku. po kolei. najpierw tu, potem u nas. nie moge też dać linków, mimo, że wszystko wsadziłem już w sieć, bo czekam na kolejne publikacje o zbliżonym temacie. taktyka publikacyjna. --Discourseur (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Ep. 51
Hey. Episode 51. [http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/06/26/episode-51-usernames-shmusernames/ Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy.] WODU P bot  04:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.

w:commons:Image:Silva rerum.JPG
Thank you dear Piotr. --Gustavo (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Review: Defense of Brest Fortress
Hi, I checked and reviewed your article (here). Unfortunately the article couldn't reach GA criteria. You can renominate it after improving the article or ask for reassessment if you disagree with my decision. -- Seyyed(t-c) 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Help
Hi Polish friend. I am Hungarian and I want upload this photo http://www.tarnok.hu/Iskola/Iskola/uttoro/nevadonk/thokoly.jpg here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vala%C5%A1ka

I couldn't upload please help me. Thanks

Greets from Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Debate for University of Pittsburgh opening
As a respected long-time editor, your opinion would be appreciated in order to help resolve the debate ongoing at Talk:University of Pittsburgh and how to proceed to a fair resolution of the issue. I would like to prevent this debate from becoming an addition to Lamest edit wars. Thank you! CrazyPaco (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pitt Wikiproject News
There is an ongoing debate regarding the introduction of the article for the University of Pittsburgh. In search of WP:Consensus, please let your opinion be known regarding the debate and possible solutions at Talk:University of Pittsburgh. Thank you and Hail to Pitt! CrazyPaco (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternate names
Hey P, you might be interested in Talk:Váh. Olessi (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Disappeared people
In Category:Disappeared people you can see: "Category for people who went missing and whose subsequent fate remains a mystery. This includes cases of forced disappearance. For any individual born before 1885 whose year of death remains undetermined, please change this category to Category:Year of death unknown." So, in case of Włodzimierz Zagórski (general) (born in 1882), the Category:Disappeared people does not fit. Cheers.--89.131.125.120 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Three-Year Plan
Hi!

Ok, but the article was dubious for me. The Three-Year Plan is a general concept in economy. Not for only polish economy system. I see 2 results:


 * 1) An article, as Three-Year Plan. The users can edit this page and write subsections, for example: In Poland, in Hungary, ...
 * 2)Disambig, and so: Three-Year Plan (Poland), Three-Year Plan (Hungary).

You support the first version, but i think, that the second is better. I don't will move the currently page, and my English is not so good, if I can write an article. Greetings from Hungary: --Tobi (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Feliks Kon
Re describing him as Jewish see Manual of Style--biographies.

 Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

His being Jewish is not relevant to his notability. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your message
I'm just guessing you probably intended to add this comment at the Moldovan WP Noticeboard, not at the Maldivian. Squash Racket (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC) 'Italic text'

Stub tool
I have replied to your enquiry at Wikipedia_talk:Stub. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Malo Watercolour
Hi,

How did you get hold of my painting of Saint Malo? Have you been here?

Cheers,

Wojtek Kozak art@wkozak.com www.wkozak.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.210.58.97 (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been there three times or so few years back. I am the Polish student (then in about 20s) who asked you for a special painting for his mother - and you designed the one with the typewriter and arabic and non-arabic letters. How did you find me? We - the Wikipedia editors - would love to be able to have some of your paintings illustrate Saint Malo, if you could release them under a free license they could illustrate this and some other articles - and of course link back to your pages, providing free advertisement of your works.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Franciszek Sołtanowicz
Jak dla mnie to do wywalenia w ślad za "rodziną". W PSB nie ma żadnych Sołtanowiczów. Ten akurat - hmm, przejrzałam na itwiki listę ministrów wojny - sami Włosi. Monumentalny hoax jakiegoś niezrównoważonego osobnika. Picus viridis (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad move
Sorry about the Hitler Stalin Pact. I thought I was being bold. I guess I just didn't think it out (United States of America is better known as USA, US or just America... please don't move such crucial articles without consensus on talk). Next time I'll use the discussion page. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Katyn massacre
Piotrus, I'm going to slowly work on this for about 6-8 weeks, and try and return to standard. Its a fine article, however given 2008 standards, there are multiple MOS & refs issues, though none too serious as can't be fixed, with work, time, and some elbow greece. It seems likely to me that that sooner or later somebody will FAR the page, and I'd like to preemptive that. As you wrote it, I'd appreciate if you could keep an eye or lend a hand. Ceoil 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He, you might live to regret that offer. (  Ceoil  sláinte 20:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes container
Hi Piotrus, I like the container very much that you created to tidy up all your user boxes and show them upon clicking show. I would like to use this tool on my own user page. I hope this is OK for you? Since I know very little about html I have a problem I cannot resolve myself. I would like to show the different drawers of the box not vertically as you do but horizontally, i.e., side by side. So, like a table where Babel and wikipedia-related are columns and upon clicking show next to Babel one sees rows popping up under Babel with your language skills. I have copied your box into my User:Tomeasy/Sandbox and removed most of its content, so the structure becomes somewhat understandable for me. Perhaps you have the patience to quickly show me how I could do this. Cheers! Tomea s y talk 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tomea s y talk 16:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your review of Macrosociology
Hi, from my experience and from watching others, if an article requires a lot of work to get to Good article status then it is sometimes failed with suggestions given. Part of the reason is so that people don't nominate an article when they need a lot of work before reaching the Good article criteria; also, sometimes people do "drive-by nominations", where a person will make one or two edits to an article and then nominate it for Good article. This usually happens to articles that still require a lot of work before reaching the Good article criteria. Gary King ( talk ) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just realized that the person who nominated the article was one of your students? I thought you were talking metaphorically about students on Wikiepedia :) I will give a more detailed review. Gary King ( talk ) 01:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review? I disclaim any knowledge of the criteria, so any comment I have would be of small value. Suggest you ask an admin, or post a request on the Milhist or Sociology project talk pages for re-review (certainly not unheard of). Congratulations, in any case.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  01:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, well good luck with the project. I suggest that the students register accounts and making edits under the accounts, including nominations. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 01:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then once more shouldn't hurt :) Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 01:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: your message
Thanks. Part of commitment to this article comes from my being a collage student, and knowing what it feels like to be in a group and thuis dependent on others to get hings done. I'm impressed, quite frankly, that the editers have managed this much work in such a short time. Last week I added the B-class criteria when I bumped the article up too start, hoping that might help you students some since the checklist in the template will essentially form the foundation for the GA-class review. Lastly, I left a message informing WP:sociology, WP:milhist, and the military sciences task force informing all parties of the peer review, and added the review to the main milhist template, so with a little luck others will notice the new review and add some additional comments. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Military sociology
Glad to help. But boy, you don't know how tempting it is to just go fix it! TREKphiler <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  18:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give 'em a look, but no "official" review; I'm just an interested bystander. I think this is a terrific idea, BTW. And yeah, waypoints may be needed. Which I think is something military sociology has learned, even if the Pentagon needs reminding; their idea of paying "performance bonuses" even if work isn't done, or the weapon system doesn't actually work, does subvert the intent...  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re edit comment. I've been avoiding saying what I think is wrong (& I hesitate to explain, 'cause they can read this page as easily as I can!), beyond pointing out issues, 'cause I think it's up to your students to see the problems for themselves, & fix them. Any thoughts?  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I am posting questions here which I think the article should answer; let's see how they do. BTW, it's the best effort of them. It looks like you've got a few SF buffs (please don't say "sci-fi"! It makes real SF fans cringe.) working it.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  20:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bite me? You're right, that was a bit over the top. I imagine you know editing somebody else's posts is, too; we're even. And I'll rein it in. (I still think so, tho. Yoikes.)  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No ofense taken, you were right. I should be complaining to their school system; it's not their fault they're held to a low standard. I'm leaving off any tags to let them figure it out & because I think that's the "front of the class" way; let the best of them find it with as little help as possible (which I prefer to do, rather than have my hand held), & if they want help, they can come ask (& I'll show 'em where to look, but not do it). I do think, within the WP community, getting no help makes it harder than normal; when I first came on, I learned a lot watching more experienced editors fix my mistakes, which your students aren't getting the benefit of. I think I understand why, but there's no really good choice. I don't envy you for it.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  19:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not too harsh on 'em, I hope? (I gave 'em my usual.)  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  05:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So I just want to know, are we doing good things for this article and will it go somewhere? I feel like I've been staring at this article for many hours not knowing where to go or even how to do anything. This is partly because I'm Wiki-illiterate. I hope even after my assignment is over for this course that this article will take off, I will be checking in on this article and contributing even after the course is over.Dam59 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Military sociology
I would like to congratulate your class on the speed with which this article is progressing. I would also like to ask a private favour though, so you should be getting an e-mail about it soon. But well done! -- Cheers mate! C YCLONIC W HIRLWIND talk 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Social interface
Hello Piotrus. I added Category:Sociological theories in the article Social interface. I think that's a correct category. It's a very good article and I hope it qualifies for the DYK. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 05:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, it is difficult to answer the question you asked. I did some research and I couldn't find the answer. If you find the answer, please let me know. By the way, N. Long seems to be a notable sociologist. We can create his biography. Do you have any information about him? Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In praise of an excellent article
Hello! I was reading your article Battle of Kostiuchnówka and I wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed it. This is an excellent article and I learned something I did not previously know. Thank you so much for your contributions! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of CINTAX
A tag has been placed on CINTAX requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Of possible interest?
Hello again! There is an AfD discussion going on about an article relating to a Polish band called Pyorrhoea. I think there may be an unfair rush to get this article deleted. If this subject is of interest, you may want to look into this and offer your comments. Hope all is well. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly
Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. <font color="#00C">W<font color="#006">ODU P <font color="#666">bot  09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Student project
Hi, I reviewed Technophobia, failed it because it had a lot of work to do before meeting standards, and then it was quickly renominated. Someone notified me that the article was nominated even before a lot of my concerns were addressed, and that's when I realized it was one of your students. I will assume that you have given the students a set of housekeeping steps before submitting GANs, but in any case, I will list a few basic ones here to reiterate:


 * Format references according to WP:CITE/ES, which especially requires that at least publisher and access dates for URLs are included. This is often overlooked but is very important.
 * Ensure that every paragraph has a reference at the end; of course, this is not a strict requirement, but it makes it a lot easier for reviewers to know that all of the information in the article is referenced to something.
 * The lead should be a summary of the entire article rather than simply an introduction.

These are the primary points that can be done by nominators; I am more than willing to help by moving references after punctuation marks if they aren't placed properly as those are just small maintenance work, but the above points need to be done by the nominators before nominating articles. Cheers! Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey dude!
Just saw your post here after peeing on a fire. Had to grin with the image of you and students! Anyhow, just saying hi! (You must be a "real bastard" to make students WRITE in the summer heat! <g>) // Fra nkB 07:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Saint Anne's Mountain
Hi Piotrus, could you help me out with this newly created article Battle of Saint Anne's Mountain? And could you possibly nominate it for DYK? Thanks. Tymek (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

DYKs
Thanks for your kind words. You can see whole list at User:Darwinek/DYK. - Darwinek (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Class Extra Credit
Hello, this is Zach from our Societies course. Here is the diff for an edit I did for an extra point. I might try to do another one before tomorrow afternoon. Zlj2755 (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just did another edit for an extra point. The previous survey results on church attendance and religious importance were not sourced so I found a source and replaced it, adding a decent sized paragraph. Here is the diff for that edit. Zlj2755 (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, I am still new to everything. I will address the things you mentioned. I will also try to make a few more edits since the deadline is extended. Thanks again. Zlj2755 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting reliably sourced information and instigating edit wars.
Please do not delete reliably sourced information, as you did here, simply because you don't like it. and please do not start your old tactic of instigating edit wars and baiting editors into 3RR violations, as you have dont in the past and are trying to do here. . As an Wikipedia admin, and a college professor, please behave more professionally and honestly. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

and again
Why do you keep deleting the reliably sourced description of Gazeta Polska? You really need to stop this. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland
Just wanted to remind you to be careful about WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect to the Righteous in the lede of "History ...": This is an article about the Jews in Poland, not about the Poles and their role in the Holocaust. The most important points in the article should be summarized in the lede, and I don't think the number of righteous Poles is among the most important facts in Polish-Jewish history. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted more from the lede than I meant to. I restored part of it, and I moved the deleted footnotes to the appropriate place in the article. Please let me know if you think I made any other mistakes. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR not an entitlement
Hi Piotrus, just a friendly reminder that the 3RR is not entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. If there are persistent issues with History of the Jews in Poland and/or with other editors on that article, might I suggest that you ask the Mediation Cabal for assistance? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Introducing Geog Barnstar?
Do you know when this was introduced and by who, who designed the image etc (Interlingual Barnstar used then, not the current one)? Simply south (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus at nlwiki
Hi, the account has been renamed and you can now use your global account. --Erwin85 (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Students' DYKs
Hi Piotrus. I just wanted to say well done on the articles you got your students to write - I hope you'll pass on my congratulations for the DYKs to them. I know I was initially dubious about bending the five-day rule for them but the points raised by you and others at the DYK suggestions page changed my mind. In the end, if this motivates even one of them to stick around and become a serious contributor then everyone will have won out - and that's what DYK's for after all. Good luck with any future teaching you do using Wikipedia. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your defamatory comments on 3RR
You wrote there that "Boody is convinced of his own self-righteousness and that Poles are evil." You should either provide serious evidence that I am convinced that "Poles are evil" or you should immediately refrain from making such defamatory and false characterizations of other editors. Once again, this is disturbing behavior on your part (specifically, publicly defaming another editor with false accusations of bigotry as a tactic in a content dispute) which reflects badly on your status as an admin. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Boodlesthecat, wasn't it you who so gladly accepted an award for fighting a cabal of Polish chauvinists? Tymek (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The evidence is obvious (,, , , , , , ... ). In any case, I have no intention of discussing anything with an editor whose idea of civil discourse is to sent others email with "you are a dick". EOT, per WP:DFTT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Remarks
Those remarks dont make my job any easier, Dont forget that im a volunteer and that I dont have to help out, but I choose to. I would appreciate it if you played along and see where this goes. WP:WWJD  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Touche  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I can but I hope to finding a sollution, and fast before Boodlesthecat‎ gets himself blocked again ;-). I trust you wont edit History of the Jews in Poland untill the dispute protection is over  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best if you didnt edit that article at all untill the protection is lifted, not even minor edits. If the article means something to you, well its not going anywhere soon so any changes your dying to make can probably wait :-)  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note the apology on the case page. Ill hold you to your word (that you would participate if you got an apology) and also if there was any incivilty (not saying there was) by your part no matter how minor just make the peace.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dzikie Pola
Zostawiłeś link do karty postaci do Dzikich Polach w stosownym artykule, choć link nie działa. Sam linku nie usuwam, zostawiam to autorowi karty ;) Silmethule (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

afd of Political society
Hi. As a contributor to the first afd of this article you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Political society (2nd nomination) andy (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mazurs
Hello Piotrus! Do you have any objections to dividing Mazurs into Masurians and Masovians? Is Mazurzy used to refer to both, as currently stated by the article? Also, you might be interested in Talk:Duchy of Warmia, an article you started. Olessi (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

God's Playground
Hi Piotrus, there is a move to delete the work I have done on the chapter synopses of Vol. I of Davies' book. Would appreciate it if you could offer me some support in the discussion section - have put a lot of work and effort into writing this article! Ivankinsman (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Silesian Offensives
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Silesian Offensives, 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Glos
No one argues about the fact that is referenced by Glos article and it should be no problem to replace hate mongering crap that Glos is, with proper references. The fact that extremist periodical is used as a reference in FA is disgraceful. M0RD00R (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I'm not questioning the fact Stroński coined that phrase. My issue is that periodicals that push Jewish World domination conspiracy theories, that advocate expulsion of the Jews from Israel to Florida etc should not be used as a reference in Wiki and especially not in Featured Article. And from my point of view no references are much better than such sources. M0RD00R (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

By way of multiple renamings... apparently
re: this talk section ... Can you take a peek in the deleted redlinked page and (Note the links to various David Kernow user pages in Types_of_administrative_country_subdivision) and my just now made comment to Quiddity.

I happened on this as once again I'm doing some maintenance on the commons Maps categories which was in fact the "Needs genesis" that drove all the hard work that went into this template, the maps category schemes, and probably subnational categories names on enwikipedia, if I know David, and we worked together very closely for a long while, so I'll claim 'that'.
 * a) One or two pages were set up as redirects to Davids "SOURCE sandbox" user subpages and/or the commons as I recollect. (I set some of them up, iirc!) If the deleted redlinked page was one of those, no big deal... but should probably become a redirect per Quiddity's query on that page to the extant table.
 * b) If its contents were a list in reality,    1) what was it's related deletion discussion page.     2) Would it appropo if formally discussed to paste the contents into a Template talk subpage on the template... (and if so, can you do that)
 * c) That these redlinks have gone "missing" this long is very uncool, for that was a lot of hard work&mdash;and things ought to be sourced, albeit indirectly!

Thanks // 17:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises
Dear Piotrus...If you are still interested in participating in WikiProject Media franchises, please remove your name from the inactive participants list and add it to the active participants list. If you don't have time, but would still like to show some support, you can always add yourself to the sympathizers list. It would be wonderful to see you in the project. Have a nice day! - LA (T) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Czesc, przeczytalem o Tobie w serwisach wikipedii i chcialbym nawiazac blizsza wspolprace. Jestem tworcą i redaktorem naczelnym EDUNEWS.PL - portalu, którego celem jest wspieranie i promocja nowoczesnych metod nauczania w Polsce. Jesli mozesz, wyslij maila na: edunews.pl (at) gmail.com, to bedziemy kontynuowac rozmowe. z pozdrowieniami

Marcin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.187.108.40 (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement over Zinkevicius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zigmas_Zinkevi%C4%8Dius#.22POV.22_pushing 81.7.89.225 (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Alden Jones
Good day Piotrus. Could you please persuade this user not to leave? He is now saying that he is leaving wikipedia. Perhaps you could convince him to stay? Thanks, Ostap 02:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note
You have been made the subject of a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Your input there may be helpful. Best, AGK ( talk ◊ contact ) 12:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignacio
Hugo.arg, a Lithuanian Wikipedist, proposes that "Ignacy Domeyko" be retitled "Ignacio Domeyko" because Domeyko became a Chilean citizen. Any thoughts? Nihil novi (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Battle Isle 1 screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Battle Isle 1 screenshot.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish death camp controversy
I am sorry for part in “Polish death camp controversy” page being put forward for deletion. I plan to vote for it to kept but wonder if the following comments would be of any use. I would put links to support comment two and three. Let me know if you think the comment would help.

Comment: Much is being made of the title which wrongly refers to a controversy. The solution is simply to rename the article rather than delete the article.

Comment: The other major issue is the examples I have added. There are plenty of lists (e.g. the foreign ministry list, the consulates/embassies around the world) which support most of the examples. If at the discussion page those suggesting the deleting had been willing to agree what source for examples was acceptable I would be happy to support those entries from suitable sources and remove those I could not find reliable sources.

Comment: This topic has been debate via the United Nations resulting in the renaming of Auschwitz, major Polish newspapers have campaigns, embassy not only Polish e.g. Israel Ambassador has spoke against it and the largest Polonia organisation will have a member assigned to deal with these issues. Jniech (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Open access movement
With no discussion, you have removed content from the page Open Access, and created a new page Open Access movement. It is fine to be bold in edits, but without any discussion or consensus, you've created an awkward and arbitrary split between two entries. I've reverted the edit you made to Open Access, and I will nominate Open Access Movement for deletion. Fences and windows (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Open Access movement
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Open Access movement, 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Fences and windows (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

FPC?
Hi Piotrus, do you have a suggestion about the proposal I've submitted for a potential featured picture candidate? It's generally difficult to get historic photos of architecture featured unless the structure no longer exists in the earlier form. I'm not sure about the reconstructions of some other sites, but it appears pretty clear from the article that the church I've located wasn't rebuilt to its original dimensions. Photographically it's a good candidate; the detail and composition are up to par. Would like to double check with you about encyclopedic value. You replied to the noticeboard before, so maybe a second look? Best wishes, Durova Charge! 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Gazeta Polska
I'm sorry, but in all the back-and-forth I'm not sure exactly what the compromise proposal was. Could you clarify it for me? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the newspaper wasn't an official government publication (i.e., an "organ"), but it seems to have been something more than a "pro-government" newspaper. Still, I think I could agree to "pro-government" because the Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) article describes its relationship with the government in greater detail. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Open Access movement
I just wanted to let you know that I was deeply impressed with your Open Access movement article. You did a superb job! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for clearing the vandalism on my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish Death Camp "controversy" disputed
I outlined my dispute with the claim of a controversy already here and elsewhere. Please do not arbitrarily remove a tag you don't like when the "controversy" claim in the title has been disputed (both on the article talk page and in the deletion discussion). Please show good faith and restore a perfectly proper tag. If you have reliable sources demonstrating "dozens" of documented instances of "controversy," please add that information to the talk page. Thank you. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Silesian Offensives
You may wish to add specific page references to this article: these can easily be obtained from the sub-articles. I'd hate to see this break into an edit war over something so easily fixed. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Should Holocaust in Lithuania be mentioned in article about collaboration in WWII?
It should, but I can see how the way it is structured now can make the mention seem a bit gratuitous. Probably better to put the bit on "the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania resulted in the near total destruction of Lithuanian Jews" (perhaps shorter and more concise) at the beginning of the section indicating the key role played by collaborators in the Holocaust (with a good reliable source supporting that) and proceed with the details. The article is about collaboration; if in the Lithuanian case collaborators were key to the Holocaust, that can be put right at the top without having to tack on a somewhat disconnected section at the end. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to it later on, just a basic reordering as I indicated above; I'm not too well versed in the details, and as to the Polish-Lithuanian aspect hardly at all. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar to what Boodles already wrote. Do the sources say whether collaborators were responsible for the high death rate of the Holocaust in Lithuania, or was it attributable to other factors (I'm just speculating, but if the Jews were concentrated in a few cities it might have been easier to round them up than if they lived in many small towns that were spread across the country-side). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Other factors. Too much to discuss here, but there is proof in Nazi documentation that Jewish deaths commonly attributed to Lithuanian collaborators (I think this was the countryside around Kaunas) are proven in Nazi documentation to have been done by a roving German commando unit when the Lithuanians didn't cooperate--but got blamed for it in Nazi propaganda. Nowhere has any article seriously discussed Hitler's intentional (and well documented) manufacture of the appearance of the Germanless Holocaust in Eastern Europe. —PētersV (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. <font color="#0000CC">W<font color="#000066">ODU P <font color="#666">bot  05:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Poland gov't in exile stamps
Piotrus,

I just found sets of gov't in exile stamps on display in the British Library in London and can supply my rough, low light photos of some if you wish. They include 'do not forget' stickers, which they urge to put on letters. I can supply these if you wish. I'll check BL policies on publishing them.--Alethe (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Orbiter
I have nominated Orbiter, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Orbiter. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? <font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 17:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
Given who Margolick has written for, including Vanity Fair, and that it's the review published in the NYT Book Review, it's a bit difficult to not include reviews such as his. My own feeling is that it's better in the article narrative to insure that the reviewer's POV is reflected as well (per additional quotes) and then cut to the controversy those POVs play into, that is, did all Poles hate Jews and merrily slaughter them without Nazi prompting--basically Gross's premise, or are the crimes of the few being visited upon the entire Polish nation, basically the Polish defense. Feel free to reply here or on my own. —PētersV (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely there will be much in terms of truly neutral outside scholarship. What bits and pieces I've run across take Gross to task for sensationalizing. Had I known I'd be editing, I would have paid more attention at the time. One might indicate that the book has provoked strong emotional responses condemning Poles as a people, certainly "Poles actively and exuberantly applauded what the Germans had in mind for the local Jewish population" from a reviewer fits that criteria. The point is that the Gross' work has created polarization, not understanding, and certainly not reconciliation.
 * IMHO, the reaction to it, alone, proves it is not a work of thoughtful scholarship. That it is the second such book rather points to the only one profiting from this all being Gross himself. If Gross were truly attempting to rectify the past, to reconcile communities, to encourage an objective look at the past and for a new generation to admit to the truths it held, he would have written differently. /IMHO —PētersV (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues of contention
Replied on my talk. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. <font color="#0000CC">W<font color="#000066">ODU P <font color="#666666">bot  06:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Help with a Polish user?
Hello. Elonka suggested that I contact you. We've been having an issue with a very young Polish user over at 2012 Summer Olympics (and the talk page (as well as much spamming across Wikiquette and COI noticeboard]]. Attempts to explain in English have failed. There has been a notice put up at ANI which summarizes the situation. Would you be able to help, or find another Polish-speaking admin who can help, explain to this young girl why she is in error, and help her understand how to interact with Wikipedia in a constructive manner? Thank you. Prince of Canadat 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is that she simply does not understand the difference between 'reporting' and 'advocating terrorism'. My hope is that if someone can explain to her in her native tongue, either she can be made to understand, or we can learn why she doesn't understand and thus be able to deal with the issue more effectively. Prince of Canadat 16:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say this makes it fairly clear; we have tried multiple times to explain the difference to her, and she just doesn't understand. Prince of Canadat 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Battle Isle 1 screenshot.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Battle Isle 1 screenshot.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Merton Center disambiguation
Hello Piotrus. You have quite the Wikipedia pedigree. Thanks for all the good you do here.

Just a quick note regarding the Thomas Merton Center disambiguation. I still do not think this is necessary, even if the Pittsburgh center gets some hits on Google; I am an amateur scholar of Merton and never heard of it. But I do not have the time or desire to get into a full-blown dispute over this.

Apologizes if I am posting this in the wrong place or am not following some arcane Wikipedia procedure.

76.214.160.160 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Kiev expedition
The little that I removed I removed for good reason, without knowing who the author was. I put work into it because I'd noticed its problems before, and being ranked A made me think "I better get to this". You can try trusting me on this and questioning me on individual points. I responded to you on the talk page btw. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam
AFAIK WP:NOTREPOSITORY is still a policy. M0RD00R (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:AN. - <font color="#000080">auburn <font color="#CC5500">pilot  talk  18:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I collapsed the comment at Talk:Rawa_Voivodeship. Piotrus, when I post messages on spanish on article talk pages, I always post either a translation or an indication of what it is (for example, if it is a literal quote from a source in spanish, I say so and I provide the bibliographical details of the source like book title, isbn, etc.). Most people on english wikipedia can't read polish, so that comment is just gibberish to them, and it's helping to make a better article (please notice that I don't have anything against polish language, it's just that most contributors can't read that message at all).


 * See, for example, Talk:Senyera, where I quote a source in spanish and italian because the english version of that page lacked the information I needed. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Summer 2008
Hi, Piotrus. I noticed that you posted a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology that you will teach some students how to contribute to Wikipedia. That's interesting. I'm interested in Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Summer 2008. I've welcomed some editors. I would like to know few things about this project. { Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 05:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
Hey Piotrus. I have proposed Arbcom hear Requests_for_arbitration, to which you are obviously involved. I feel bad about having to do this, but I feel I'm acting in the best interests of the community. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 09:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your RFArb statement
Hello Piotrus. Please could you refactor your statement on the main RfArb page? Statements should be 500 words or less, and yours is currently 1330. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've asked him as well. A good idea when refactoring is to move it into your userpage subspace and link to it on the main article. It would be good if you could refactor it yourself or one of the clerks will have to do it.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Zydokomuna
All of the places that you are defacing the article with with cit tags contain the information in the refs supplied. If you need clarification, discuss it on the talk page. I strongly suggest that you discontinue that belligerent, harassing approach to editing an article and adopt a cooperative approach. defacing an article with cit tags is simply a form of harassing editors who supplied the well sourced information. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no excuse for this editing behavior on your part. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The cites are at the end of sections. If you wont refer to the cites and need clarification, ask on the talk page. That is the civil way to approach a cooperative effort, not the belligerent, hostile approach you continually take. I'm through suggesting to you that you moderate your approach. I suspect you will ignore me again and adopt the rude arrogant posture such as in your reply just now on my talk page, and it will only be when it all catches up with you that you actually understand. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim is Calgacus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calgacus This is Calgacus. He attacked you in Władysław Jagiełło discussion. It can be seen in archives. He is not a new user. He only changed his user name on 19th March 2007. Many antipolish statements were issued by him, examples: Ethnic slurs against Polish people upon receiving congrats from Ghirlandajo: "The Poles are pretty tenacious, and doubtless will campaign vigorously or find some device to get it moved to a Polonocentric name. " 

Polish spelling of Polish ruler is according to him "Polish nationalist masturbation".

About historian that specialises in Poland "Russophobic" 

Urging others to oppose Polish users 

Accusations that there is Polish Wikipedia Cabal 

I can't report this. I am not established user. Please notify this to clerks, this is an old grudge attack by polonophobic. His adminship should be reviewed-new name allowed him to hide those ethnic slurs and attacks.

--Koretek (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you help me?
Would you help me translate to english an article at my sandbox? There is polish content about diffrents, similars between Windows Vista and Windows XP. I'd be happy ;] Alden or talk with Alden 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you look at my sanbox and would you correct grammar mistakes? Alden or talk with Alden 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested
Hello! What is your opinion of this current AfD discussion on a World War II-related article about a Polish Holocaust victim: ? Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding this article to the discussion list for Poland-related articles. I am eager to save this article and I appreciate you effort to bring it to the attention of the community.  Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for inviting me to provide input on your GA candidate article. That subject deserves as much attention as possible.  I will look into it and provide whatever assistance I can.  Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just checked the Czesława Kwoka AfD discussion and I am overwhelmed that people came out to save that article. Thank you, again, for spreading the word.  Honestly, I could not bear the thought of seeing that poor child's memory removed from this site. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Map
Yes, I saw. But it is very hard to read. As far as I can see it agrees with the map I made on major points so I did not use it as a ref. Any specific comments? Renata (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When I get around it I will fix the other map on Commons. It has a very different purpose than the one I made. BTW, on the scanned map there are two types of arrows: one solid line and another dashed. They are for the same dates (July 1919 - April 1920), so what's the difference? Renata (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons map is fixed. Negotiations: I have only Lithuanized names. S. Staniševskis (Vice-Minister of Defense), V. Pšesmickis (Secretary), M. Mackevičius (Major), M. Hurčinas (Lieutenant) arrived to Kaunas and negotiated with Mykolas Sleževičius. Attacks: July 29 - towards Jieznas, but stopped near Kašoniai estate; July 31 - Dembinas estate, Pakalniškiai and Pasiekiai villages; Aug 2 - raid 15 km deep into Lithuanian territory and took Kalviai town. Renata (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Staniševskis was Polish. I just have his Lithuanized name (the same way as George Bush becomes Džordžas Bušas). So his Polish name should be something like Staniszewski. Renata (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OT: There was a major debate whether foreign names should be Lithuanized or not (I am not sure how it got resolved). For one, Lithuanian grammar requires to add endings like -as or -is to these names for declension purposes. If the names are not Lithuanized then they would look something like George'as Bush'as... which is plain weird. So that's the unfortunate feature of Lithuanian language. Renata (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts on Jozef Pilsudski
Although I prefer you would discuss your issues on the talk page, and seek outside views if necessary, rather than this become a revert war, I must warn you at this point on 3RR applying to your reverts on this article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A comment
Hi, Piotrus. I guess you did not mean any Russian users except Irpen in your statement for the last ArbComm case. So, I removed my comment as irrelevant. But I will be watching and perhaps provide some evidence if needed.Biophys (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Piłsudski
I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about Piłsudski and I'm afraid I wouldn't be of much help. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" on quotes
Can yuo please show me where there was a consensus on quotes, and how that justifies you rewriting a section in a way that doesn't conform to what the sources say? Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your latest version is a bit of a synthesis but can be accepted as a compromise. However, please discuss new issues as they arise on their merits, without resort to claims of past consensuses, featured article status and the like. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Forgot
Apologise, I have forgotten indeed, Lithuanian–Soviet War and Sejny Uprising have now completed B-checklist. Thanks for reminding me and all the best, Eurocopter (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:"Own"
It might be a good idea to refrain from disingenuous edit-summaries at the moment. Anyway, I have content issues with your reverts, which I've explained on talk quite fully; and you haven't commented on them. Don't you see why if you don't address my own content concerns your reverts aren't going to get anywhere? Reverting and edit-warring isn't how you'll make my concerns disappear, Piotrus, it never has been ... :( Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the original ref was presented as if it came from a historical source. But if you're gonna use a made-up number (which is what it is), you'll have to explain why the cited author thinks that figure range likely to be accurate. After all, you are inserting it in the lead template as if it were a fact, which of course it isn't. Jaworski is not a prominent historian of medieval Rus, so his claims won't get enough attention to be disputed by historians of the topic. More generally, because he (supposedly) wrote that in the Polish language, it won't be subject to any meaningful peer review among specialists of medieval Russia. That Svyatopolk's position in the sons list is unclear is demonstrable by reading actual historians of medieval Russia, such as Franklin and Shepard, the refs to which I provided and even went to the trouble to quote. As it is so demonstrably clear, adding this bit could serve nothing more than highlight the mistake of a non-specialist historical writer or give undue weight to a non-mainstream author in the subject area. I mean, does Jaworski just assert this or does he argue it based upon source evidence, and which evidence? You need to at least point this out If the former, then the reference isn't reliable. If the latter, his arguments should be summarised. Duchy of the Poles or Duchy of Poland is btw a more historically authentic way of representing how that lordship was described in contemporary sources. Actually give Thietmar a read and you'd find that out. Regarding the assertions of those "neutral editors", you're both misrepresenting them and pushing a flawed argument, as even if they did what you're asserting (which they didn't), it wouldn't matter because the actual heart of the dispute is being ignored. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved this discussion to the talk page, where it will be more useful to the community. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

greg park avenue
I strongly recommend you do what you can to cool greg park avenue out. Here he launches yet another Jew-baiting rant on your arbitration page (similar to the one you threatened to block for refactoring in the past). And threatening admins with violence is definitely a no-no. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful as well if you counseled him about threatening editors with violence and about using your Arb for anti-semitic rants. The sock-puppet claims are prima facie nonsense, but the other issues will end badly for him if he persists. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Greg has been systematically dismissive and hostile to my suggestions about his behavior--I have left multiple warnings on his page in advance. And I agree, anti-semitism is most definitely not to be taken lightly, which is why I recommend someone who can communicate with him let him know, before he gets banned. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Greg had posted offensive, Jew-baiting comments on WP on multiple occasions, one of which you threatened to block me for removing. He also has a tendency to post belligerent comments, most recently threatening an admin. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, never mind; since you prefer to play 20 questions rather than respond to a courtesy erquest that you intervene with Greg, in the interim he has been strongly instructed to remove his antisemitic comments. Greg has been spewing been this antisemitic garbage for months. At this point, I don't think it has gone unnoticed that you have been effectively empowering him, in no small part by threatening to block me for refactoring one of his earlier Jew-baiting, BLP-violating rants. No matter; at this point, it's high time that Greg's flagrant policy violations and hate rants come to an end. You still have the opportunity to explain to him that there is little future in Wikipedia for an editor that does little more than spread incivility and hatred here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty obvious to others who have read it, and anti-semitic enough for him to be instructed to remove a similar comment from the Arb page. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, at this point, the issue isn;t explaining how its anti-semitic, the issue is making it stop. three months of this garbage is too much. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine; you've had three months to make an effort to curb greg's hate postings. Doesn't matter now; I was only asking you as a courtesy as someone close to him. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The case is made; Greg has been ask to remove his comments on the explicit becuase they were antisemitic. So don't worry about it, it's already taken care of. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Working with Piotrus
Hello! Sorry to bother, but as per your comments on my RfA: we did interact the other week relating to this article:. I respect your opinion and input on Wikipedia and I just wanted to alert you to my current endeavour. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day
Hello, I notice you're using one of the motd templates, run by Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User space harassment
Please stop NYScholar (talk) from harassing me on my own Talk page. He's placing numerous false and questionable 'warnings' on my page, restoring such comments after I have removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar threats (in rows of two or three), and otherwise trying to display material I find annoying. They are all, without exception, common forms of continual harassment which has been going on for several days. Please consult WP:HUSH for guidelines. Thank you in advance. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  04:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page, the talk pages of the images, the frequent reverting of the templates in the image pages, etc. The claims above are false and the "warnings" that Poeticbent immediately deletes have been templates required by the speedy-deletion template; there is no "sockpuppet" issue that I know of; I have no idea what Poeticbent is referring to, unless Poeticbent is editing both using an anonymous IP add. and the registered name (I have no way of knowing; only Poeticbent knows if the two are one and the same or not, and I never said that they were): An anonymous IP user and Poeticbent have been deleting proper templates from images already marked with speedy-deletion templates from an article. The turning this into a "personal" matter is purely the result of violations of WP:AGF by Poeticbent, as illustrated above. These claims are absurd. The important matter is the problems in the images that Poeticbent has uploaded to Wikipedia and inserted in the article in question. I leave it to administrators to investigate the problems in the images and have no desire to interact with Poeticbent directly. Violations of WP:3RR are obvious in that user's actions in the image pages and the article the 2 images appear in. I have placed no "false and questionable 'warnings'" on Poeticbent's talk page; each one has been triggered by that user's reverting and deletions of proper templates in the image pages and the image captions. I've said all I have to say about this matter. Only out of courtesy have I posted the proper template warnings on the user's talk page; the templates have been required by the speedy-deletion template; each time the user has deleted them, not commented on the talk page of the images and changed the wording in my speedy-deletion templates to inaccurate versions about the image.

These images are damaging the integrity of the articles in which they appear because they are dubious non-free images that are marked for speedy-deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I been asked by Piotrus to look at the images in question. Well, we should not be sourcing things to youtube, since anything that is online can be put into a youtube video and things like that. I doubt the person claiming release is the actual copyright holder, so I need to look at the laws in question. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The copyright holder is still alive, so his still hold copyright on the images. There is no provision on the subject being "under duress" that exempts the copyright. Plus, remove the claim from the youtube uploader from the images, since youtube claims are pretty much petty BS and should be ignored. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a comment that appears cognizant of all of the problems in the source used by the uploader in Wikipedia. The YouTube video is the source of these images, copied from both YouTube and a blog copying from Wikipedia copying from YouTube; the YouTube uploader has not got any authorization or license to post these images/videos on the internet.  Totally unreliable and dubious source for an image uploaded to Wikipedia.  --NYScholar (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I doubt YouTube is the actual source of the images that appears in our articles now, so whatever the youtube uploader might say, I think we should ignore it. The photographer has been identified and he is still alive, so I have no doubt that these are copyrighted. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please clarify: "And I doubt YouTube is the actual source of the images that appears in our articles now": on what basis do you "doubt" this? What is the source of the images? (I've given some possibilities earlier--including the Museum/Associated Press in a newspaper article; could you explain? --NYScholar (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The two images posted for review
Please see the images as now posted at WP:FUR. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Items 24 and 25. --NYScholar (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Return
Hi,

An English Wikipedia admin of Polish origin returning after a long hiatus would like to lend a helping hand and start editing some Poland-related articles again. Could you please tell me where I should start ? Regards, Kpjas (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Legnica
You made some edits to Battle of Legnica. One of the changes was changing:
 * "then on 3 March then defeated the army of King Boleslav V of Kraków near Kraków;"

to
 * "then on 3 March then defeated Polish army near Tursk on 13 February;"

The source I used for the former was: Erik Hildinger. "Mongol Invasions: Battle of Liegnitz". TheHistoryNet.com, originally published Military History magazine, June 1997. Accessed September 2, 2008.

Do you have a source for the different statements in your edit? Whose Army was it if you are saying that Hildinger was wrong is saying that it was King Boleslav V of Kraków's army?

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

MedRevise.co.uk
Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active. With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

eve-wiki
Good to see you do occasionally still make it to eve-wiki... Do you still play? Do you subscribe to the channel? --72.42.38.252 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC) (eve-wiki:Eirik Ratcatcher)

You must be kidding
Sixteen citation tags?? There's a pretty thick line between cooperative editing and harassment, and you have managed to erase it entirely. I understand that because of the negative attention you received for your 3 RR edit warring tactics that you can no longer go that route, but this is just as bad. I have sourced every claim I have ever made on every article we have both edited, yet you seem to throw good faith out the window (as well as simple cooperative etiquette, wherein you could easily look in the refs supplied and find the info you "request") and simply see editing these articles as some sort of petty edit warfare. It's pretty sad. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

answer attempt
The article says the Ukrainian name is "Privetnoye". This seems right, northeast of Lviv as the article says. I think this is uk:Привітне (Локачинський район). Compare the coordinates. Hope that helps. Also, I have seen you are involved in an arbitration about alleged meatpuppetry and User Alden Jones. What a waste of time. I had a run in with him, its obvious he just likes to revert everyone. I hope it ends well. Ostap 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Thank you for your kind suggestion. By the way, I have something to ask from you. Do you know The history of Mongols by Howorth. It is good book, I think. But I am not sure how many volumes there are. Do you know that? If possible could you provide me some info about it. Cheers, --Enerelt (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom
Thank you for your note. This case doesn't involve me, and I'm trying not to get involved in it. I hope you can understand. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Polish History on Wikipedia
I must thank those Polish Wikipedians who have contributed so much to the English version. Unfortunately my Polish is limited, I really need to spend the time to expand my Polish vocabulary. With regard to the article Historical demography of Poland, I could add considerable detail on the 19th century up until 1939. I see you have contributed to the article on the Settlement Commission. Can you tell me if the records of the commission are open to the public? The reason I ask is that my fathers paternal grandparents came to the US in October 1886 from Sztum County. I have always wondered if the commission purchased their land. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lwow
Thanks for your message. In my experience, virtually all conflicts can be resolved amicably through a strict reading of NPOV, V, and NOR. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Poland Census of 1946
There was in fact a census taken Poland in February 1946. I have the data from this census in a copy of the Statistical year book of Poland [microform] / Central Statistical Office of the Republic of Poland. Warsaw : 1947---Woogie10w (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The Polish census of 1946 did list the German and Other-Non Polish population for each province. There is seperate data on the number of Germans that had been verified as Poles by Feb 1946. Also the transfers out of Poland to Germany and the USSR from 1946-50 were detailed in official Polish statistical data. That is the reason why I cited the census of 1946 as a source for the German and other population in 1950--Woogie10w (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jan Matejko's gallery
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jan Matejko's gallery, 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Fram (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

w:commons:Image:Polish-Lith. royal-repub..PNG
Something like this? --Gustavo (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FA Status of History of Jews in Poland
You realize of course that your implied claims about me and the article's FA status "(before Boody, for example, we were somehow able to raise History of the Jews in Poland to a FA status, without any major incivil disputes; after his arrival it became one of the protected articles)" is completely bogus on a number of accounts. For one, it lost FA status because of serious disruptions by Jacurek, a nasty sock puppeteer whose disruptions, the history shows, you did nothing to try and remedy. The implication that it lost FA status because of me is laughably and demonstrably a bald faced lie, since of course you know quite well that I didnt make any edits to the article until 2 months after it lost FA status (mainly edits to try and clean up some of the mess the article had descended into). I mention this to give you the opportunity to avoid having yourself look foolish by posting such clearly false and deceptive claims about a fellow editor on your arb. It's up to you, of course, whether or not you want to modify your false claims to correspond with reality and avoid such embarrassment; makes no difference to me (although I consider lies about me posted on a board to be rude, but I am told, in response to my complaint about Greg, that it's allowed to post lies there). Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. Crude sophistry. In any case, I was simply offering you the opportunity to avoid embarrassment with that transparently bogus attempt to implicate me in the loss of FA status for the article. Entirely your choice. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. Arbitration report
I apologise unreservedly. On first reading of your remarks (and, as you can imagine, there are a lot of remarks to get through in an arbitration case), I didn't realise that your position was that there had been misconduct by others, and I have amended the report accordingly. David Mestel(Talk) 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Arb
I see you are still making a habit of making distorted claims. I wrote "stop trying to fill an encyclopedia without outdated, discredited and outright anti-semitic nonsense." I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand that the material you keep adding is, among other things, representative of discredited, fringe, anti-semitic canards. Hence, my repeated, lengthy attempts top explain it to you on multiple occasions. In typical fashion, you turn a deaf ear to the explanations, eschew discussion and post a typical distorted claim that somehow you are being persecuted. Oh well, I tried. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Taraxacum officinale, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR
You made a boo boo. First one wasnt a revert. All you did prior was wikify Piortowski's name. I corrected an error in longstanding text. It wasnt a revert. So we both have 3 reverts. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Well, actually I know you were made aware through other means, but just for the record, I have opened a discussion on WP:ANI with respect to you and another editor, here. Risker (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good morning, please you could translate from English into Polish the article Campora San Giovanni? Thanks so much!
Good morning and regards from Campora San Giovanni. I write you regarding the article of my village native, destination of so many workers and Polish tourists, In this place for a while they arrive many your fellow citizens, are as itinerant dealers, both as tourists, both as workers in the countries and in the housebuilding. But also thanks to the mixed marriages between my fellow citizens and your fellow citizens. Well, this I would want help to improve the relationships among Campora San Giovanni and Poland, also for Polish that they live to Campora and for their darlings that will want to know some news on the village, and for the Polish tourists that want to visit us. Naturally if you will help me I will reciprocate you the favor, translating for you a biography or a geographical article, in Spanish, Italian, Sicilian and Neapolitan. In fact in the Italian edition my work is that of biographer and geographer. In attends him of one certain answer of yours of dispatch my anticipated thanks and an invitation to come us to visit. Thanks still!--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1RR restrictions
Hi Piotrus, this message is being sent to inform you that after a discussion on ANI, you are here by restricted to no more than one revert when dealing with Boodlesthecat (generally speaking). Any violation of said restriction will result in a block. Tiptoety talk 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Saw on your page your stress meter, and this will hopefully lift your spirits. :)

Proposed deletion of City guard
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article City guard, 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. ninety:one 14:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use images
Yes, but it didn't say which company that was ... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Municipal police/City guard
There is nothing on city guard that is not on Municipal police, and it's not worth duplicating the content. ninety:one 18:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Off Wiki discussions
It's indicated on your Arb that you had requested/asked/shopped off-Wiki for other admins to review my edits and perhaps block me. I am aware of the instances of on-Wiki shopping for blocks against me that you have done. Can you tell me how many previous instances of off-Wiki shopping and requests you have initiated concerning my edits? thanks. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62 has been released. It's the first episode since Wikimania and it packs a lot of content! You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org.  W ODU P bot  05:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Image copyright problem with Image:Gun X Sword good guys.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gun X Sword good guys.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Misstatement on arb
Don't you think you've made a mis-statement of fact in describing this as a "failure of 3RR? This had been reviewed and there was no finding of a 3RR violation. Don't you think it's a bit deceptive to provide a link to a 3RR filing but not to the actual outcome, which clearly contradicts your assertion? Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Translating Tarnowskie Góry
Hi I wondered if you could help translate this from polish wikipedia. <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">The Bald One     <font size="-4"><font color="Black">White cat 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchful eye on...
Hi,

Mógłbyś rzucić okiem na edycje tego IP-ka jego edycje jak misię zdaje trącą pewnym POV pushingiem. Ja się nie znam na historii więc trudno mi ocenić na ile są sensowne/bezsensowne. Pozdrowienia, Kpjas (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GANs
Why did you nominate so many articles for GAN that clearly required significant improvement and references before meeting the criteria? I'm puzzled, because you have a great track record of excellent work done on articles, but these articles are far below par. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 06:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't imagine how much of a sigh of relief it is to hear that from you :) I saw them and was seriously concerned; I first checked the article histories and saw that User:Orczar had the primary contributions on all of them so figured you were nominating for them. Afterwards, however, I double-checked by seeing if maybe someone else had nominated the articles under your name, but nope, they were done by you. Glad to hear that it's just helping someone out, though; perhaps next time it'd be better if you posted a peer review for them instead, though? Just a thought :) Cheers! Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 06:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is almost at GA level. Some short paragraphs should be merged, for instance, and some MOS issues are there, such as "on June 21 – 25" should be "on June 21–25". Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 06:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

GA etc.
I've never had much interest in satisfying Wikipedia's formal expectations indeed and concentrate on informational content of the articles; have never submitted my articles to any review. Wikipedia is full of ridiculously incorrect information, but that attracts little attention. The emphasis seems to be on proper headings, tables, placement of references etc. A computer program could do those things. Referencing often presents problems. For example, much of the information in an article like History of Poland is common knowledge. How do you reference a statement like "The Battle of Grunwald took place in 1410"?

The prehistory articles I consider unfinished, a kind of work in progress (slow for the lack of time). For example I have not paid much attention to competing points of view, uncertainties and controversies. Missing references result from the fact that originally I referenced by sections, not single statements (which I still find hard to do). The most complete of the articles though, Poland in the Early Middle Ages, is a detailed account based on recent publications by Polish academicians (as well as historical sources) on the origin of the Slavs and of the Polish nation and state. This material had not previously been available in English and I find it perplexing that someone thinks it is of "Mid-importance". Too deep for an encyclopedia or not trivial enough?

Orczar (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Constitution of May 3, 1791 up for FAR
Constitution of May 3, 1791 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your arbitration case
Hi Piotrus, I do not have time to comment a lot at workshop, but let me simply tell what I think.
 * The principles: WP is not a justice system. The purpose of ArbCom is to ensure good work of the project. To achieve that goal, they should provide good conditions for work of the most productive contributors, unless these contributors violate WP policies, as proven beyond the reasonable doubt.
 * The findings.
 * (1) No convincing proofs was provided about you;
 * (2) There are long-standing EE conflicts, where the sides are unable or unwilling to negotiate (one of the sides is you). This must be resolved.
 * Remedies.
 * (1) You and Deacon are advised to stay out of each other, because you do not have a significant overlap of interests, and because he is also a highly productive editor;
 * (2) Irpen should be placed on the Digwuren list, especially since the previous ArbCom case found him at fault; he also should be ordered not to edit any articles you edited, and do not comment about you;
 * (3) All other your alleged "tag-team" participants have relatively few edits and little contribution in the EE area (one can check their edit histories) - compare to you. Therefore, they should be ordered at least topic ban - on any EE subjects - not as a measure "justice", but simply to minimize the damage and provide more friendly working conditions in this area.Biophys (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Greg
What greg wrote about me was wrong. But I assume everyone will know that what he wrote is no reflection on you, and my reply to him is directed only at him, not you, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Piotrus, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for having to remind you User:Slrubenstein that editing someone else's section at RfA is prohibited. Please read the info box at the very top of that page as well as the immediately following guidelines. You're welcome to reply at Talk or start a new section of your own. But please, don't take it personally. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  04:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits on arbcom
(You wrote)

I would be vary of being too bold modyfying others's posts; some can take an issue with that (and some already did). In arbcom, there are dedicated clerks (WP:CLERK), who can be asked to do some changes if needed. Also, do note that there are proposals being discussed in workshop, and this is were the action is moving.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just following TPG i.e. # 1 (quote): "No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist... etc." And, thanks for the update. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikistress and other issues
The level of my wikistress has fallen recently. Not to the level at which I'd be willing to return to this can of worms where a group of devoted editors are watching my every step, reverting wherever they can, criticizing and slandering me for what I did (and, in most cases, for what I didn't do) and so on. I still believe it's a waste of my time. Too much time have I spent here already.

Sadly, we, the content creators are at a lost position here. In case of content disputes, both you and me in most cases saw that there is more than "One Truth", and tried to defend that. I believe that's how both of us understand the sacred rule of NPOV. However, the recent conflicts with the Lithuanian club (and not-so-recent quarrels with the Russian-minded editors) taught me, that the "One Sacred Truth" will always win, no matter how many references you present. Our opponents do not present evidence (and when they do - it's Kazimieras Garšva), yet they prevail anyway.

Why? It seems to me that sheer number of votes is all that matters. They're plenty, we're few. In theory, all open-minded Wikipedians should take part in such content disputes and simply judge by the sources presented. However, in most cases nobody cares except for a small group of people - too small to make a difference. Users like Lokyz or Iulius can safely delete references they dislike - and it's perfectly right and well. But when you revert an article to restore the references - you're instantly reported to some ArbCom, RfA or some other place, where you have to waste time explaining that "you're not a camel", as we say here in Poland.

The same applies to cases of "simple" personal attacks and slanderous campaigns take place. Remember Renata's farewell letter? She accused me of all sorts of absurd things without presenting a single diff or link (of which there could be none), but noone stood in my defence. People don't care, we have to waste time defending ourselves.

Now on to your case. Of course, the accusations are in most cases completely absurd and out of the blue. Of course, holding this diff against you would be hilarious if it wasn't true (for the non-informed readers, the article deals with Jews from the areas annexed by Lithuania as well; erasing a mention of Polish Jews from there is similar to, say, erasing the mention of Polish Jews from the article on Warsaw Ghetto, arguing that there was no Poland back then). Same for the RfA against Lokyz you filed - you clearly tried to defend against a similar slander campaign that the one that finally pushed me out of Wikipedia. And now that's one of the main arguments against you. Sad but true.

Anyway, feel free to re-post this letter anywhere you please should you need it - or point me to a place you want me to. I simply lost track of all the links and places where the hunting season on you has started.  // Halibutt 01:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)