User talk:Piotrus/Archive 30

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK
I already destubbed and submitted Mszczuj. I was still busy looking for a few more references on Conrad.radek (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File:German Soviet.jpg
IfD, thank God, is not a head count. I fail to see why your actions should not be considered wheel-warring, which is obviously incredibly inappropriate. If you believed Cavalry should have reconsidered, contacting him or, or starting a deletion review, would have been the appropriate course of action, not this unilateral "unclosing". J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just seen your comment on Cavalry's talk page, and I am now even more alarmed. "The image has decent FURationales"- no it doesn't, they're copy pasted, and do not explain at all what the image is adding to the respective articles. They are a mockery of our requirement for a fair use rationale. It "conveys a lot of meaning"? Still, no one's managed to explain what that meaning is. The fact "nobody will sue us over this" is completely irrelevant, and I am shocked to see an admin use it. We don't go for the "maximum legally allowed"- we go for what we need, and we stick to the non-free content criteria. What if he doesn't reopen the discussion? Oh well, we'll just leave the image undeleted? And what if I deemed your action inappropriate, and chose to redelete? Would that be wheel warring? Would you then rerestore? I am happy to accept that undoing another admin's action is legitimate- especially with blocks, I am always happy for another admin to undo my actions before contacting me (or even without contacting me, if they don't think it necessary) but undeleting an image that you uploaded, immediately after deletion due to an IfD debate in which you took part... That crosses the line, for me. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support the writing of custom rationales for each use- that way, the uses and rationales could be easily individually scrutinised, meaning that myself and others wouldn't have to guess at what the image was actually being used to illustrate. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps we can look to resolving this here, without the need for a ridiculous IfD debate. You say that you "consider it extremly useful and informative"- could you please explain what it is that you feel it illustrates? Why you feel that needs to be illustrated? And why that couldn't be explained in words? J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not like the idea that something "deserves an image", but is there not a free one? What about images like File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H27337, Moskau, Stalin und Ribbentrop im Kreml.jpg or File:Armia Czerwona,Wehrmacht 23.09.1939 wspólna parada.jpg? They clearly show Nazi-Soviet collaboration. I agree that articles should be illustrated, but the non-free content criteria do limit how they can be illustrated- if the "best image possible" is non-free, it should only be used if it adds something that needs to be added, that cannot be added from free images. I fail to see why the mere fact they were allies actually needs to be illustrated anyway- why is it not enough just to say it? Again, the fact many people realise it doesn't mean we're justified in using non-free images. The images have to add something, and I still don't see what they're adding. (If someone is willing to point out why this image is PD and tag it as such, I am happy to drop the matter entirely.) J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will leave it up to you to judge whether the images should be replaced or removed in specific articles, as you are no doubt more familiar with the subject matter than me. I personally do not see why the reels would be in the public domain- they are not the work of an agency that releases images into the public domain, and they are not old enough to fall into the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Your Message
Hi Piotr, I've left a response to your message on my talk page --     23:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Piotr, I've left another reply for you in the same place :-)     00:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Draft
Here is the link to our wiki page. Reborn Doll There are still a few things on the outline that I haven't been able to get to but I have done the research for it, such as the purchasing section, but I think we have some info under most the sections proposed in the outline. My group members added some info too but i happened to notice that another editor came and deleted it.I still intend to make edits to girlosophy but I have been trying to concentrate on the reborns more because I knew the draft was due today. I am looking forward to hear feedback.--KayPet (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Stanisław Koniecpolski FAR
nominated Stanisław Koniecpolski for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Extra Credit Topic Ideas
Hello Professor. I have been looking into choosing a second article to upgrade to obtain extra credit, and was hoping you could provide some feedback on my choices--which ones have enough information out there, level of interest, etc. They are: Ceremonial marriage, Closed community, Hypermasculinity, and Proposal of marriage.

My group (4) has started to get moving and we have a very basic set up currently on our American family structure page. Our goal is to have a draft ready by Thursday, and hopefully the other members will catch up to Tony & I. Thanks for your help! --Red walnut (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Same question, asked again
(with only a small hope) - do you think the two images found here: could be uploaded to Wikicommons/used in the Letzkau article? They both appear to be in the "author died more than 70 years ago" category though to really confirm that I'd need access to the two sources listed at the website.radek (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sociology of the Family Group 3
Hey Professor, We've created an outline on the talk page of the stay-at-home dad article, and will be making edits to the page in the upcoming days. Here is a like to the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stay-at-home_dad&diff=prev&oldid=302107286. Denastroje (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Denastroje

Pedros Cup
It's a Polish indoor athletics event, held twice a year. It's actually Pedro's Cup. See http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro%27s_Cup. I'm not deprodding as finding sources in English is tough. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject question
Hi, I saw your comments but I'm just a little confused. could you explain what you mean by your second point- There are statements that miss inline citations; as a rule of thumb, every sentence should have its own citation (since others can later add things between your sentences and make it confusing to know what is sourced) - see WP:CITE I looked at the WP:CITE but I'm still confused. Could you point out an example of something that needs the inline citation. Would even something like this sentance need a citation? Some premature reborns come in incubators with a breathing apparatus attached to their nose. Because I thought things like this were just a fact and didn't need a citation. Also, Some of the things I read basically the same thing on multiple sources so I thought those would just be considered facts too. For example the fabrication process is basically a summary of things i read on many websites and books so its just combined and simplified basic info? Sorry for the confusion.--KayPet (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

UPA nad Massacres of Poles in Volhynia
Zwróć uwagę na te dwa tematy ukraińscy nacjonaliści zaczęli wycinkę tekstu i żonglują tekstem bez zwracania uwagi na źródła. Uwagi ode mnie nic nie pomogą, im się wydaje że znają historię.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I nominated one of your images for deletion on commons
I wasn't sure how it met the PD-Russia criteria, and I think it needs more eyes. You may have uploaded it when the PD-Russia tag said something else. Please comment so it can be kept if possible. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stay-at-home dad
Done. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dupa biskupa i dawni Polacy
Co do dupy, nie znaleźliśmy na razie źródeł. W najlepszej PWN-owskiej encyklopedii gier hasło nie istnieje. Poszukam jeszcze w BUWie, gdzie szuka się fajnie, ale do narodowej nie pojdę, bo to jest skrajność, tej biblioteki się prawie nie da używać i zajęłoby to cały dzień. Natomias ntability nie ulega wątpliwości, więc hasło zostało.

Poważniejszym problemem są hasła Polish tribes i Lechites. To są strsasznie złe i śmieszne hasła, np. "Polsih tribes" klasyfikuje Warmiaków jako plemię polskie... Mazurzy nigdy żadnym plemienie nie byli... Borowiacy i Kociewiacy przecież też nie... Generalnie te hasła to horror, nic dziwnego, że konfudują. Na pl jest tylko odrobinę lepiej, czyli też bardzo źle. Laforgue (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reborn Edits
Thanks that helped a lot I tried to fix most of them like that, but my mouse ran out of batteries so I will fix it up more tomorrow. I'm just have re-find where I got some of the info which shouldn't be a problem. Some of the stuff though is my group mates and I duon't where their info is from from the links they put up so im going to email them to fix theirs. Then I'll get started on doing more of the redirect stuff. Thanks again. Any more tips is appreciated.--KayPet (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipediology
I just got your CITASA message about the Bangalore conference and am very much interested. I also have another colleague here at Northwestern who is doing some amazing research on multi/hyper-lingual Wikipedias. I should have made my introduction to you a while back, but I'm just now becoming seriously involved in Wikipedia research. Let me know where and how I can be of assistance either on or off-Wiki. Best, Madcoverboy (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa navbox
Have just composed the Armia Krajowa navbox, which is actually several nested navboxes, and applied it to a number of articles. Occurs to me that you might have some suggestions for improvement (note: I am not an expert on AK.) In particular, links to topics involving the postwar history of the AK and members are missing, this is a very tricky area, and I am not sure how to approach it. Also, links to articles dealing with the interaction with the Jewish resistance may need some treatment, again a very tricky area.Mtsmallwood (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou
I would like to express my gratitude for your generosity of help and spirit.

Msasscts (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)msassctsMsasscts (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project (Sociology of the Family) Question
Hey professor, For some reason if I reuse a citation, it appears in the references more than once. What am I doing wrong? Let me know thanks! Denastroje (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Denastroje

Girlosophy
Yes I am very sorry about that. I have not been able to get to working on that article because I have really been trying to tidy up the reborn article from your suggestions for the 21st. Although I have had intentions to expand the girlosophy article much more the reborn article has been my priority, and the Girlosphy has been my wikipedia exploration project. I was sort of using it as experimentation for learning how to get info on the reborn article. I have been intending to restate the things I put on, and hope to fix it, if I have time between the reborn article. Thank you for informing me. --KayPet (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply re circularity and plagiarism
Thanks for pointing me to the new discussions. But I probably won't engage there because IMO the issue at that particular article (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) is already covered by the current passage in WP:VERIFIABILITY stating that We should not source to material originating in WP, since it creates circularity. Verifiability is a core content policy and I don't suppose it changes much. With regard to whether the discovery at the PL-LT Comm article is a notable instance of plagiarism from WP by academics: since the cited website is a collection of papers written by students, and clearly published as such (, authors and tutors on page 10) - even tho the website was sponsored by an academic institution - I don't see it as notable occurence along those lines. Of course others may well disagree. Novickas (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One question on Poland wikiproject
I read many articles about Poland recently and I see that there are many very interesting and very good. How many Poland related articles are featured? I also would like to translate some of them on Serbian language. I think that articles about Poland are the best about some Slavic people on English Wikipedia. Great job!--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reborn Article
Hey Prof, I had a couple questions about the article. I have been working vigorously on tidying up the article page and making sure just about everything is cited. Anything that's not is most likely from someone in my group and I have sent several emails asking them to fix this. I am also going to work on doing more of the internal links you suggested. I was wondering if you could take a look at the page and tell me if you have anymore suggestions? I was also wondering if the article had to be submitted for good article before class or if we could just do it sometime tom? I was hoping you might be able to show me real quick how this is done during break because I am slightly confused. Most of tonight I was hoping to dedicate to looking over my notes for the test, but I probably will try to work on the article a little more too before tomorrow, so any comments would be helpful. Thanks for your help --KayPet (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sociology WikiProject Group 6
Hi Piotr, I am not really sure what to do about our project. It is clearly nowhere near being finished. I do not mind working on it more, however I had an accident over the weekend and it is hard for me to work on the project at this time due to injury. Also, I will not be in class on Thursday because of this. I am not sure what to do, as it has been extremely difficult to even communicate with most of my group members as they rarely come to class and have limited access to their email. Let me know what I can do to try to remedy this situation. Thanks, Maggie —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagggieR (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Diff link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warrior_(2010_film)&diff=prev&oldid=298473887

I just noticed that you asked me to send you a diff link instead of a history link to the assignment a few weeks back. Here it is above.

-Chad Bruns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunzy03 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sociology of the family articles
Hi Piotrus, I have noticed the first of a group of assignment-driven GA noms coming through and I think you were the person looking after them, and had posted about it to the GAN talk page a while back. Anyway, I have initiated a review of the first, Wedding industry. I see two others are now up, Reborn doll and History of the family. They all have strengths and weaknesses, but mostly weaknesses in the case of Wedding industry. It would normally have been quickfailed, as has already been pointed out to me by another editor (I did a full review and put it on hold), and others may hit similar turbulence. If these are your class, I hope they have plenty of time to act on needed revisions, but also that you will be able to take the opportunity to use this proces to teach them about research methods, logical argument, use of sources, peer review, etc etc. Contact me on my talk page if you wish. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg FAR
nominated Blitzkrieg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Peter Andersen (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

project
Hey Professor, I uploaded the research onto the History of the Family page, and the Teen Rebellion Page (for extra credit) but cannot figure out how to join the group or how to notify you. I've been trying all week, but I keep getting confused by the wikipedia procedures. I'm attempting to become more tech savvy, but beyond imaging software I am a complete noob. In any case, my username is andypolefrone, and I've set in the links to the pages below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_family

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_rebellion

thanks for your help, Andypolefrone (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Andy Polefrone

Good article edits
Hey prof, I think I found better resources for the Ashton Drake section under Doll types. Its from the Doll Reader magazine that seems to have been deemed okay. I have found similar information about the other doll types from the same source, but am going to wait to change it to make sure this source is okay. Is it? Its sources #'s 24 and 25 they are from magazines so there's no link to a web page but the other magazine sources were okay so I want to make sure this is too so I don't waste time looking into this angle. Thanks--KayPet (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to follow you around. Magazines are fine as sources.  I'm also thinking that Colliii source is OK, since the magazine seems to thing its important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick question on a source would the for dummies series of books be considered a reliable source? thanks--KayPet (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So if I mix the NYT info in with the reborn dollhouse stuff it should be fine? some of the sentences I noticed I would not have to change the sentance but just the source since its supported by both such as the first when it states the first step is to strip the doll of its paint. Thats basically what the NYT article says too so is it cool to leave it? thanks--KayPet (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: History of the family
I've placed the article on hold per your request. Just so you know, I feel it's unlikely that they'll be able to get it to standard in a week - I will leave it on hold for longer if they're willing to work on it, but given that it's a class assignment, that might not be the case. Also, what about Teenage rebellion? I recently failed that article too, and it didn't have the same "educational assignment" tag that this one did, but it was nominated by one of your students. Should the same request apply? (Also, another editor suggested that History of the family may contain plagiarism, but I will leave that to you to deal with unless the article is improved enough to possibly make GA, in which case I will have to check it). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability -- Criteria -- Polish Noble Families
Piotrus: "I have initiatted a discussion on Polish Wikipedia, aiming at establishing a criteria of notability for Polish noble families."

Please send me a link on my talk page to the above. Thank you. Exxess (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto of the Day
Hi there, Piotrus! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Call out
WikiProject Alternate History is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active editor, please add your name back to the Active members list. You can also list yourself as a Supporter if you feel you cannot dedicate the time necessary to be an active member.

Please also see the Project talk page for more information concerning this Call Out. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Group 4 Nominated
Hello Professor. Group 4 (American family structure) is now on the list for Good Article nominations. Please ensure we have done the proper steps on both our talk page and on the Good Article review page. Thanks! --Red walnut (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article
WE GOT THE GOOD ARTICLE!! SCORE!!--KayPet (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reborn doll is now a GA
I think what you did with your class is awesome. I think the students learned quite a bit, and it helps Wikipedia. If you do it again, drop me a line on my talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Polish decrees
== Wikipedia Signpost : 27 July 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
 * Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
 * Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
 * Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
 * News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
 * Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe Delivered by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 12:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob Taggart
Remove it if you wish, I really couldn't care less! Draggleduck (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Anna Zakrzewska
Thank you for your suggestion for T:TDYK for this article. Hanka Biała is not well known in the United States, but she appears to be better known in Poland. I have seen her name on a number of Polish blogs. Hannah's English article needs a little attention from a Polish-speaking editor for some more details from the main Polish language source, which for this article appears to be [http://www.rawelin.foxnet.pl/zopa/kartki.htm#zo Stanisław Sieradzki: ''Kartki z Powstania Warszawskiego. Hanka Biała sanitariuszka plutonu "Felek"'']. I could only get a very general sense from Babelfish what Stanisław Sieradzki was discussing but he did give specific details about the operations of Rudy company, including the locations in Warsaw. (I didn't have confidence I was understanding the narrative correctly so I avoided the details). Sieradzki also describes how he saw White Hannah die (he always calls her by her code name) and then went to tell her parents, and of their reaction to the news. If I could speak Polish enough to translate it I would have included his statements as a quotation. Also there's a question of whether she was associated with the Scouting movement, I suspect she was but I can't find a source. Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bielicka as Makowiecka plus Basia and Krzysia from Pan Wolodyjowski.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Bielicka as Makowiecka plus Basia and Krzysia from Pan Wolodyjowski.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lakhva ghetto
There needs to be clear consensus before you can move forward with the removal of this item from the template. As participants in the discussion, it isn't appropriate that either of us assess when consensus has been reached - given that there are only three editors who have spoken to the issue, at a minimum we would need more input and then a third party to close the discussion. Having said that, I have proposed some alternate solutions -- hopefully the two of us can figure it out and move on. Regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

More reborn Dolls
All should be taken care of--KayPet (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New pictures may also be getting put up. She e-mailed both me and peregrine with pics and I asked if he could help out since wikipedia is so complicated with the photo thing- just thought I'd let you know--KayPet (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Stay-at-home dad
Hey professor, As I posted on the talk page on our article, I think this is about all we can do to improve it at this point. Although it is not as good as we would like it to be, we all have finals to study for and it seems like we've done all we can. Thanks for all your help! Denastroje (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Denastroje
 * I'd say it's probably good enough. I passed it as a GA. Congratulations all. Thanks for the project, Piotrus. This was a lot more fun than I thought it would be. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Koliber re-nominated her article for GA even though my review of it is still on hold. I deleted the template from the talk page, but not from the list. Thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's at C-class now, maybe B, and it was Start-class to begin with. She's put a lot of work into it, and it's definitely improved...just not enough for GA. Given the scope of the topic, she's done fairly well, especially since language seems to be an issue for her. Anyways, I'll post a message on her talk page. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hey prof I don't know if i'm suppose to be asking class questions on wikipedia, but it seems like an easier way to get a hold of you ;) On one of the review questions you asked "Which of the following statements about divorce is true?" and the answer was A. A majority of American adults has divorced at least once. Another option C. states After a divorce, mothers are more likely to have custody of children than fathers. In our notes it says under a slide titled Separation and Divorce the information states "about 20% of American adults have divorced at least once. and 85% of divorced mothers have custody of their children.  Since 20% is not a majority and 85% is mostly mothers wouldn't that make the answer C not A.  I just want to make sure I'm reading the info right so I don't get tricked on the test. Thanks and sorry for the confusion--KayPet (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption parenting
Hey there, I think Adoption parenting is one of yours. You might want to give this some attention - it has been tagged for multiple issues, but really should be tagged for deletion, as this is better covered already, in the relevant section of Adoption. Not sure how an AfD discussion is going to work in with your assignment process, let alone the GAN process! You might want to have a chat to the student. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

American family structure achieved GA!
Just found out right before class that American family structure got approved for GA. Tony and I really worked our butts off the past few days and I am pretty psyched to say the least. A lot of thanks to Nikkimaria for being a good sport and helping us out with the project! --Red walnut (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RC active users
The SQL Query offered to you by Dispenser is certainly the best way to request those numbers. If you don't have access to db of Wikipedia like me all you can do is request the recent changes with HTML, RSS or any other format and let a program parse out the data manually. To give an example Ive coded such a tool in Java here sourcecode/jar/Windows. It'll yield good results but is quick and dirty...

Can we use a unit such as active users/articles to evaluate the level of maintenance? What would be highly interesting is to see this data in a graph. What are the peaks? When are most users online? Are more users active in wikipedia during the week or on weekends? Observing these numbers over a longer period, while the number of created accounts is naturally increasing, is also the number of active users on a steady increase? What do you think? --64.202.107.25 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that long term trends would be very valuable. Unfortunately I cannot code, so I am dependent on others creating software - or counting manually :( I run your software and it works nicely; I got (~UTC 19:30) 119 users and 45 IPs active in the past 5 minutes and 836 users and 411 IPs in the last hour. Here are a few hopefully easy to implement suggestions for your software: 1) add a 'number of editors in a last minute' 2) allow logging into a text file (in a fashion that would be excel friendly; maybe save the data into a csv file directly?) 3) and a time stamp (UTC perhaps)? And of course, do announce your software at the relevant thread at VPT/T:RCP; I'd also suggest adding it somewhere to Tools. PS. Updates: (1 - ~UTC 19:30) 5 min: 106 / 41 1h: 788 / 408 (2 - ~UTC 20:30) 5 min: 98 / 34 1h: 829 / 461 (3 - UTC ~02:30 5 min: 102/36 1h: 750/419 --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So I left the application running overnight, and I have a bunch more reports. I am guessing it updates every hour? Here are the results:
 * ~4:30 UTC: 5min: 80/24 1h: 768/427
 * ~5:30 UTC: 5min: 73/27 1h: 726/457
 * ~6:30 UTC: 5min: 65/19 1h: 725/429
 * ~7:30 UTC: 5min: 68/18 1h: 782/392
 * ~8:30 UTC: 5min: 82/28 1h: 757/392
 * ~9:30 UTC: 5min: 63/21 1h: 790/427
 * ~10:30 UTC: 5min: 70/22 1h: 784/389
 * ~11:30 UTC: 5min: 82/38 1h: 827/442
 * ~12:30 UTC: 5min: 77/23 1h: 786/394
 * ~13:30 UTC: 5min: 93/26 1h: 837/398
 * ~14:30 UTC: 5min: 1127/46 h: 823/384
 * ~15:30 UTC: 5min: 123/42 1h: 915/439
 * ~16:30 UTC: 5min: 109/40 1h: 928/328
 * ~17:30 UTC: 5min: 103/40 1h: 876/439
 * ~18:30 UTC: 5min: 113/36 1h: 914/437
 * ~19:30 UTC: 5min: 96/31 1h: 904/432
 * ~20:30 UTC: 5min: 140/43 1h: 874/409
 * ~21:30 UTC: 5min: 120/52 1h: 870/474
 * ~22:30 UTC: 5min: 109/39 1h: 863/401
 * ~23.30 UTC: 5min: 91/23 1h: 843/409
 * ~00.30 UTC: 5min: 110/41 1h: 788/383
 * ~01.30 UTC: 5min: 97/35 1h: 817/388
 * ~02.30 UTC: 5min: 109/32 1h: 795/409
 * ~03.30 UTC: 5min: 106/38 1h: 768/455
 * ~04.30 UTC: 1h: 803/426
 * ~05.30 UTC: 1h: 754/450
 * ~06.30 UTC: 1h: 757/434
 * ~07.30 UTC: 1h: 756/428
 * ~08.30 UTC: 1h: 781/432
 * ~09.30 UTC: 1h: 774/449
 * ~11.30 UTC: 1h: 746/415
 * ~11.30 UTC: 1h: 838/380
 * ~12.30 UTC: 1h: 872/385
 * ~13.30 UTC: 1h: 856/408
 * ~14.30 UTC: 1h: 945/425
 * ~15:30 UTC: 1h: 863/427
 * ~16.30 UTC: 1h: 855/430
 * ~17.30 UTC: 1h: 847/412
 * ~18.30 UTC: 1h: 851/386
 * ~19.30 UTC: 1h: 862/420
 * And I am done for now.
 * --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm actually on vacation and shouldn't be working. Still I realized there are some very severe flaws in the correctness of the tool. I am truly sorry. At the moment your version of the tool shouldn't even be functioning at all since that version expected dates to be written like "02 August 2009" -- mind the zero -- but Wikipedia uses "2 August 2009" and now it finds nothing at all :-(


 * A second flaw is with using the RecentChanges.php?limit=50000. When you set the limit to 50,000, Wikipedia internally minimizes that limit back to 5,000 changes. That wouldn't matter for all Wikipedias except for the English one, because the English Wikipedia has more than 5,000 changes/hour usually . It means that all your results were incorrect, the numbers presented were way too small. That flaw could be easily fixed by fetching the recent changes several times in every hour and keep them in the memory.


 * Having fixed those flaws however, this version sourcecode/jar/Windows of it finds all the users and IPs accurately now. You can use and modify my code any way you like, I'm not taking ownership or copyright. Sorry again that you let your computer running all night and still got only poor results. If I make any other progress with it, I will let you know.


 * As a format for Excel the easiest way should be using a CVS file. To be compatible with most software, now the tool first stores the Unix time, then the ISO 8601 time, then the time in yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss, then the number of users and lastly the number of IPs. Do you need another format? The results.csv file is in the same directory and worked great with OpenOffice.org (OpenOffice exists also for Windows!), it should also work with MS Excel. Does it work now? --64.202.107.25 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. How do you make the program create and save the cvs file? I've been running it for few hours but I don't see the file anywhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename of category
Category Massacres of Poles in Volhynia contains some places outside Volhynie, for example Chodaczków Wielki. How to rename category to Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. --Paweł5586 (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

image indetification
Could you please identificate location of this picture, as well as others of this church. cheers --Sfu (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)?

Hi Piotr,

I had a question that I thought might be better suited to e-mail, but I wanted to let you know that the e-mail was on its way here on Wikipedia, to make sure you'd get the note.

thanks again, Andypolefrone (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Andy

Volhynia dispute now at AN3
Hello Piotrus. I see there's a report at WP:AN3 about Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Since this is not in the conventional form of a 3RR report, any admin who dares to take on that report will be tempted to close it with no action. But since the issue has been raised, what would you think about a 1RR restriction for the article? (One revert per editor per day). My hope is this would produce more negotiation, since there would be less reward given to speedy reverters. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With your encouragement, I've closed the AN3 case as '1RR on the article', added a note to the article talk imposing the 1RR, and asked for review at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of organizations in the Honorverse
I have nominated List of organizations in the Honorverse, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of organizations in the Honorverse. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jack Merridew 05:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of Stanisław Lem
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Stanisław Lem/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rakowicki Cemetery
(You wrote)

You'll DYK it, of course...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure enough, but I have to think up a catchy hook first. Cheers, Poeticbent talk  03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 3 August 2009 ==


 * News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: T:TDYK
Thanks for suggestion, most of these small articles are single sourced as there is very limited material available both printed and on the net. I have occasionaally added cites but there have been few occasions where I felt they were justified due to most info being single sourced. I can't see any way out of that.Petebutt (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have lodged a self nomination using the SZD-6x article which I discovered had some glaring errors in it, thanks for making me look at it.Petebutt (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI
You'll probably want to comment here. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Bob Taggart
Hello Piotrus, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Bob Taggart has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary ' (remove prod - prod was contested on the talk page) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removed prod from American Family (artwork exhibition)
I have removed the prod tag from American Family (artwork exhibition), which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --  At am a chat 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Lisowczycy
Can you take a look at the subject? Great topic, needs at least copyedit starting from the first sentence. NVO (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Please see Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your WP:AE request about Lvivske
Hello Piotrus. Radek has added a comment suggesting that the complaint about Lvivske be closed with no action, since in his opinion Lvivske has become more constructive recently. You are the filer of the AE complaint. It would be interesting to know if you agree. I am astounded at the degree of harmony on the talk page I've been following over at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, and I hope that it lasts. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1937 peasant strike in Poland
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. == Wikipedia Signpost : 10 August 2009 ==


 * Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
 * News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:CaptMruk recce Soviet Aug1944 Rad-Kie.jpg
What are you doing? You can't honestly believe that that image meets the NFCC, can you? J Milburn (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, what? You believe that tagging images without rationales that clearly do not meet our non-free content criteria is disruptive? J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. If the images are free, tag them as such. If they are not, they can only be used within the confines of our non-free content criteria. No issue of copyright paranoia at all. J Milburn (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I looked, and I am used to dealing with images with rather messy FURs. If they are useful images, I will do my best to improve the rationales. However, I am failing to see why these random photos showing people posing with guns are of great importance. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to start such a discussion, go for it. I'm not really sure what needs to be discussed. Images lack a rationale/are not needed/do not meet our NFCC for whatever other reason, and so are tagged for deletion. Others may appeal the deletion by resolving the problem or demonstrating why it is not a problem, but there's no need for some central discussion (in any case, if there was, it would go to the NFC talk page, FfD or fair use review, rather than a WikiProject, as this is a NFC issue, not a content issue...). J Milburn (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you're reverting me now in an attempt to get me to start some kind of ridiculous centralised discussion, but I'd appreciate some explanations. Firstly, what do you believe is useful about this image? J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It adds nothing to the article. You claim it shows the Nazi weaponry- if an image is needed to show that, free images of said Nazi weaponry could be used. You didn't actually answer my question anyway- why is the image useful? I didn't ask what it showed or how high quality it was, I asked why it was useful. J Milburn (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet our non-free content criteria? It shows nothing of great significance, and what it does show can easily be illustrated freely or explained in the text. I'm really not seeing where you're going with this... J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a matter of opinion, nor is it a matter of democracy. Rather than just pointing to how many people like the image, could you please explain why it's so important? We're both reasonable people, I can't see why you're so eager not to discuss this... J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really am alarmed I'm hearing this from you, of all people. You still haven't actually explained what the image illustrates, you've just said over and over what it shows... In any case, I have nominated it for deletion, let us continue the discussion there. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't say this just now, just wanted to add that my head is reeling. I really, really, really can't see why you've turned a simple image cleanup into some kind of war between encyclopedists and deletionists. What are you doing?! Whatever, that image can be decided at FfD now. Seems like an awful waste of time, but it's what you wanted... J Milburn (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Anna Zakrzewska
I wonder if you could look at Anna Zakrzewska to see if it could be improved. To be honest, I wrote the article because I saw her picture when I was looking at the AK images on wiki commons and wondered about her. I was not able to put together as good an article as I wanted because near-complete inability to speak Polish. I am curious if the subject is very well known today in Poland.Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aleksander Jagiellończyk
Hi Piotrus, you seemed like the person to go to for this, I just want to draw your attenton to the article on Aleksander Jagiellończyk, as it has no references, especially regarding some of the things mentioned in the biography (then again, I could just not know), like the last sentence in said biography section. 124.190.113.128 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear anon, please consider registering. In cases such as this, you can tag the article with unreferenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Published author
Just though you would like to know that you can now claim to be a published author. LOL. Renata (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the issue with them. They are not disclosing on Amazon product pages that they copy from Wikipedia, only inside the book. Renata (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Been discussed on Village Pump. Raising the issue again on mailing list. Not much to do, unless you have an Amazon account and want to leave comments/reviews that the book is copied from Wikipedia... :( Renata (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand the new age printing technology it that books can be printed on demand, one at a time, using a ready-made template. These books don’t actually exist until someone sends in the cash to make them. They’re printed and collated on a big photocopy machine – one hard copy at a time – just to fill the order. Poeticbent talk  03:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the link posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. What I saw there was just the book title with some publisher info and the front page facsimile... and than some keywords below the offer (possibly added by a bot or some other naming device), which sound familiar, yes; but let's not jump to conclusions and make farfetched assumptions before anybody gets the hard copy.


 * Have you read this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It only confirms what I said. None of these so called books actually exist before payment. Cheers, Poeticbent talk  04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamelonka
No, I don't see any need for the suffix, since there doesn't seem to be any other place with that name. --Kotniski (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stuff we talked about

 * Thanks for the leads. A couple for you:
 * Tom Lehrer
 * Eternal return
 * What was Littlepage's first name?
 * Your "Black Oceans" reads well, though I wonder whether it shouldn't be "Monad Wars" rather than "Monads Wars"? It would be interesting to compare your text with Jacek Dukaj's original.  Nihil novi (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you a member of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America? If not, may I propose you to the Institute for membership? Annual dues are negligible. The Institute publishes a quarterly, The Polish Review, in which you might publish, perhaps on "Poland and Wikipedia." And the Institute holds an annual meeting, at various East Coast universities, which you might attend and at which you could make presentations or participate on panels. A number of U.S. universities have departments of Polish history and culture, and many more have Slavic departments. Nihil novi (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

re
Cześć. Za słaby jestem z gramatyki by swobodnie się poruszać po tematach. Zajmuje się głównie UPA bo to najpoważniejsza biała plama w naszej historii, w dodatku zmącona przez lata fałszerstwami i propagandą nacjonalistów. Ktoś się musi z tym zmierzyć. Aczkolwiek mogę pomóc przy tematach historycznych, tylko napisz konkretnie o czym. Te hasła wyglądają nieźle, w jakim kierunku chcesz rozbudowy? Pozdrawiam serdecznie --Paweł5586 (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is mine from this topic at Polish Wiki: Bronisław Szeremeta, Władysław Filar, Polska samoobrona na Wołyniu, Wojciech Lis, Akcja Zachód, Bitwa pod Kuryłówką, Ludwik Więcław, Akcja Nieszpory, Amnestia w 1947 roku. I will help you with this biographical entries, after my vacations (for a week).--Paweł5586 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dmytro Klyachkivsky, plz take a look and correct me.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Zwróćcie uwagę na Lwów, Grody Czerwieńskie, Ruś Czerwoną. Ukraińcy tam bzdury wypisują. Po pierwsze hasła Grody Czerwieńskie nie ma. Po drugie w 981 Włodzimierz podbił Grody Czerwieńskie które były zamieszkane przez polskie plemiona Lędzian które wg. jednego źródła były niezależne a według drugiego znajdowały się już w państwie Mieszka I. Potem ziemie te przechodziły z rąk do rąk pomiędzy Rusią a Polską. W między czasie na tych etnicznie polskich ziemiach powstał Lwów, prawdopodobnie w miejscu osady Lędzian. Potem ziemie te nazywano Rusią Czerwoną od nazwy Grody Czerwieńskie. W 1340 prawem spadkobierstwa (a nie podboju!) zajął je Kazimierz Wielki, można powiedzieć że ziemie te wróciły do Polski. Articles: Lendians, Red Ruthenia, Lviv. The new article Cherven towns is needed.--Paweł5586 (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kraków
Hi Piotrus. I've nominated Kraków for GA. I feel quietly confident that it now meets all the criteria - though, of course, a new reviewer with fresh eyes might pick up details I missed. Anyway - fingers crossed!  SilkTork  *YES! 09:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit rude?
What's rude is your wholesale revert marked as minor edit with a misleading edit summary. I would presume it was some sort of mistake on your part. And you addition of thousands of Polish prisoners executed does not belong there. What it refers to is NKVD prisoner massacres. Renata (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Polish Review
Great idea, about putting The Polish Review online. I too have regretted that they're not online. Are most scholarly journals, these days? If The Polish Review were to go online, could that harm their institutional interests? For example, might fewer persons be interested in having a subscription if they could read the Review online?

Perhaps you could suggest to them, going online? Incidentally, I understand that the Review was recently looking for a new editor-in-chief, the current one reportedly preferring to concentrate on something else. You would make a first-rate editor-in-chief, with your broad knowledge of Poland-related subject matter and your strong background in computer and internet applications. If you needed a part-time sub-editor to help out with copy-editing, I might be persuaded to help out.

If Prof. Gromada has contacted you, did he offer to send you some issues of the Review? Nihil novi (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 17 August 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
 * Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
 * News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD
I did. I said that he passes WP:COMPOSER. Joe Chill (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jadwiga of Zagan
Thank You Piotrus. I've had my article on Jadwiga of Pomerania featured on the did you know page apparently, I recieved the message the day it was to be on but I couldn't find the entry. Thank You for your nomination! I think I may nominate a few articles. Thanks again!--David (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually an article is featured in the DYK section for several hours, you can verify that by seeing what links to the article that was DYKed - if it is linked from one of the DYK archive pages, it was DYKed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomitation to Good Articles
Hi Piotrus, thanks for your good wishes, I tried to do my best in the articles. Actually, I never think about nominate my newly articles or the article who I could improved. If you could do that I really appreciate. Thanks a lot and sorry for my bad english!!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mieszko I article
Adapting the featured Polish article is a great idea. I'll be happy to get involved when User:Aldebaran69 is finished with his work. I suppose had it not been for Mieszko and his activities, there would have been no Poland and no Polish language... Orczar (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I really appreciate it!radek (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Galicia Diet
I will do my best. But you are very welcome to supply any additional historical facts or suggestions in the regards to that topic. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Polscy politycy
Witaj,

Mam problem z boxami w artykułach o polskich politykach. Dawid_Jackiewicz - wiesz może co mam tam wpisać? Dawid Jackiewicz jest posłem już drugą kadencję, a tam jest miejsce tylko na jedną. Będę wdzięczny za pomoc. Niekoniecznie przy edytowaniu, bo wiem, że masz ważniejsze sprawy na głowie :)

Pozdrawiam serdecznie,

--OspreyPL (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * nie wyszło najlepiej, może warto dodać do infoboxu pola" Religion, Profession, Signature, Website, Children - tak jak John Mccain pytam, bo nie chcę robić niepotrzebnego zamieszania

DYK for Jadwiga of Żagań
The bot screwed up; your hook will actually appear in about 5 hours. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  17:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

obrazek
hej. chciałbym zasugerować pewne zmiany do obrazka, który znajduje sie na stronie o auschwitz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WW2-Holocaust-Poland.PNG#filehistory

1. według mnie dobrze by było, gdyby tereny wcielone do niemiec nie były podpisane, że należą do polski - wartherland i zachodnie prusy. w czasie drugiej wojny były to tereny po prostu niemieckie.

2. wydaje mi się, że konsekwentne stosowanie nazw uczyniło by te mapkę bardziej czytelną - obecnie są tam nazwy polskie, niemieckie i angielskie - proponowałbym raczej nazwy niemieckie, zgodnie zz duchem czasu

3. mylące są też zaznaczone obecne polskie granice - tym bardziej, że są niepełne, na wschodzie dziwnie znikają. obejmują one ziemie wcielone do polski dopiero po wojnie. podobnie granice obecnych państw na wschodzie.

pozdrawiam --Dert45 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: A friendly warning
Thanks for your advice. I was under the impression that reverting three times is ok and I wasn't going to go any further, since I am having more troubles to defend my edits at a different page. And thanks for the WP:RFC hint! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalifat (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Project Camelot
Please stop adding unrelated content to that article. You may want to read policies on WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:NOTABILITY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

_________________________________

Hi,thanks for the Welcome!

I'm new to this and was trying to resolve a conflict between Project Camelot (1964) and Project Camelot (2006). I Have permission to post an article on Project Camelot(2006)and was wondering if you can review it on my page Slystg before submitting to the main stream, thanks. Sylvain

P.S. I'm giving it a slightly different name, added (2006) to make it a new page. Is there any way we can redirect readers to this new article if/when they find themselves on the old unrelated one? --Slystg (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slystg (talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Directing readers to possible alternative meanings is common and quite possible, Wikipedia:Disambiguation should have most info on that. For now I'd suggest that you create an article on Project Camelot (2006), and add a disambig note to Project Camelot. If you could prove that they are roughly as notable, we could move Project Camelot to Project Camelot (1964) and make the Project Camelot into a pure disambig page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I did just that and am now working with others to add more reputable references, please allow us some time for editing. Thanks a bunch. P.S. This organization is non-profit and becoming a real icon in modern culture, they have hundreds of interviews and are respected all over the world, really. Sylvain --Slystg (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Adam Próchnik
== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 24 August 2009 ==


 * News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
 * Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR of Invasion of Poland (1939)
I have nominated Invasion of Poland (1939) for Featured article review due to a number of, hopefully, resolvable issues that exist in the article. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gdansk observations
Noted Wiki top page coverage, stressing Nazi attack on Polish culture. Disappointed that Obama administration doesn't have more representation there today. But US in gen'l seems not to think much of the east when reflecting on the war. Alethe (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested files from Commons
Good morning! I uploaded these files you requested: Warsaw uprising posters are in very high resolution: they probably need to be adjusted to meet fair use criteria.

I apologize for delay.

Regards, A.J. (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK help?
Was wondering if you'd like to nominate the article I recently created, Russian annexation of Eastern Galicia, 1914-1915.Faustian (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will be vacationing over the holiday and thus will not be near a computer during that time, have a few things to wrap up before I go, so if you wouldn't mind perhaps you can nominate it.  Two hooks that comes to mind are "DYK that, during World War I, the Russian administration in newly annexed eastern Galicia was so zealous in trying to convert the local population from the Ukrainian Catholic to the Russian Orthodox Church that the head of the Russian Army complained that ammunition trains were being diverted to the transportation of Orthodox priests, to the detriment of the war effort." Or "DYK that from 1914 to 1915 the Russian Empire captured and attempted to integrate "eastern Galicia", the last significant territory of the medieval state of Kieven Rus".  Thanks for your help!Faustian (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK question
Hello. Do you think [Wacław Olszak] article is proper for DYK? Or more sources should be found and added. What do you think? - Darwinek (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I nominated it yesterday already. - Darwinek (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Kraków as GA
Thanks for your help in getting this done! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's done? Great. I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

zdjęcie konsulatu Rosji w Gdańsku
zgodnie z życzeniem informuję, że zdjęcie konsulatu Rosji w Gdańsku jest :) ps. i pzdr od another born-in-Silesia-in-1980-Mensa-member. Lisarlena (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Anna walentynowicz medal.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Anna walentynowicz medal.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pais (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dwór (manor house)
Hello! Your submission of Dwór (manor house) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LargoLarry (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WS02 change coming to template...
Please take a look at my latest entry at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Honorverse#WS1.2C_WS2.2C_etc_versus_WS01.2C_WS02_i.e.:_conflict_with_.27Waardenburg_syndrome.2C_a_genetic_disorder.27." LP-mn (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

YouTube Awards
Hej

ktoś chce ciachnąć YouTube Awards. Trochę zdziwiłem się bo to było w waszym CWZ/DYK. Mógłbyś zerknąć ? PMG (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles
I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. You have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of Franciszek Chałupka?
The reason I ask is I notice you're quite knowledgeable about Polish history. I just happened upon this discussion during my browsing. I'm not familiar with the subject but perhaps you can comment on it to settle the matter? Because I'd really hate to see a potentially notable bio of a Pole be overlooked. :) -- &oelig; &trade; 01:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

user name and contribution
Hi Piotrus

I have created a user name and made a contribution to Wikipedia. My username is angelalhan and I made a contribution to Joel Cooper's page. He was a doctor that I have worked with this past summer and I added his interests section and added information on his career section.

Angela Han--Angelalhan (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Chalupka
Please undo your changes. English doesn't recognize "ł" only "l".--WlaKom (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator, you need to know that, the source of the article should match the article. You, in turn, change the name of the article are not associated with the sources. Therefore, please spend some time to read Wikipedia help articles. Please, move all "Chalupka" discussion to Talk:Franciszek Chalupka--WlaKom (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia contribution and diff of edit
I have created an account and made an edit to a page. My user name is: Gxlarson. I added to the article: Parts of Animals. Here's a diff of my edit (I hope):. I added a short summary of the Aristotle's treatise. I don't think my diff worked, but i'll just post a new one next week. -Stefan Larson Gxlarson (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Diff of edit
Here it is:. Gxlarson (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I made an account!
Hello Piotr!

I just made an account my account name is Lassib. My real name is Lauren Sibigtroth. Thanks

Lassib (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

created account
My name is Jessica A. McCracken and I have created my account

Jam187 (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

New Account
Hi Pitor, I also made my wiki account. My username is ges21 but my real name is Gabby Szlachta-McGinn. I also completed the tutorial and also made a change in the sandbox, however I am not sure if that will tell you I completed that part of the task or not. Thanks!

Ges21 (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Global Society Online Project Group
Ragini Gupta (leader) Johnathon Adams Katie Manbachi Jessica Feldbauer Melissa Nadeau

Rgg6 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New Account
Hello, I'm Abby Crouse and my user name is Accgail. I have added new information to the wikipedia subject "Adoption" the subheading section is called "Two types of Adoption."

Accgail (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Group members
Hello this is Abby the group leader of Group #6

danloheyde52- Dan Loheyde Saa42- Sarah Afaia Jml72- Justin Lovett toasterlyreasons- Katie Dempsey

Accgail (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Temporary desysop
The Arbitration Committee has temporarily desysopped you pending a complete investigation. See Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. Cool Hand Luke 20:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Co Ci się stało?
W porównaniu do Twych oponentów zachowywałeś się jak Lord Neutral :-( Picus viridis (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Julian Zachariewicz
Piotrus, odkieruj proszę to. Na plWiki już odkierowane (pl:Julian Zachariewicz). Pozdr. Romuald Wróblewski (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit and User Name
Piotr,

Here is my edit, I'm hoping the diff works. I edited the section "1998 Presidential Election" in the article about the West Wing. 

Chazz Aden (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Created an Account
Hi, my name is Jessica Feldbauer and my username is Jsf26. I edited Star Wars. Here (I hope) is a link to my diff. 

--Jsf26 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Polish UK memorial
Did you notice this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/staffordshire/8262279.stm Alethe (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished Tutorial
Hello,

Just sending a message that I have done the tutorial.

Here is a DIFF of another edit I did to a high school article (I hope)

Please let me know if this DIFF was successful?

Thank you for your feedback on my blog!

Rgg6 (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

New Account
Just wanted to tell you I made a new account. My username is mln30 but my real name is Melissa Nadeau. I finished the tutorial and made an edit under John Lynch(American Football). Here is my diff

Mln30 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: welcomestudent
Oops, my mistake. Went back and fixed a few. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Made an account & Edited a page
Hello!

My account name is: airp89, and I'm in Group 8 for the project. I edited a wiki article on Shane McCutcheon. My diff:

Thanks!

--Arielle Parris-Hoshour

Airp89 (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Edit
Hi Piotr, I made an edit to a wiki page, as instructed to do so by September 21. I made an edit to the USA swimming page under 'individual meets.' My edit was "Times that are achieved at these types of meet may only be used in US swimming (qualifying times and seeding times for other meets) meeting.  If a time is achieved at a US meet, it may not be used as a time for PIAA qualification times an visa versa." The page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Swimming#Invitational_Meet

Ges21 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

HELLO Bethany from group 5 (Team X-bladz) wanted to let you know that I edited an article, MLIA Also, check out MLIA, its awesome. Bsgayda (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit and User Name
I have created an account with user name jcl41. I am in group 10 with Dan Weingart, Chazz Aden, Pat Atkins, and Eric Wisniewski. I edited an article about Sutherland Hall. The diff is Thanks, Jon Luchansky Jcl41 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

SOC0317 Edit
Hello,

I have registered my username as Emm66, and I completed the tutorial sanbox and made an edit to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society page, under the Fundraising category. I added the portion regarding the Light the Night Walk.

Thanks, Erika Moul Emm66 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Group 7
Hello,

I forgot to mention that I joined group 7, along with Angela Han. Mariah Blake should also be part of the group, as well, but I am unaware of her username.

Thank you, Erika Moul Emm66 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DIFF
Here is the diff for my most recent edit: []

Emm66 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Blog entries/comments
Piotr,

I have just tried (and now succeeded) in commenting on other students' blogs, and I believe that there is a security feature that disabled me from doing so on the computer that I had previously used to post my comments. (These, I know, were both done from my home computer, because they were submitted on the weekend). I am now using a university computer and was successful in posting my comment on Angela Han's blog post (for Week 2's commentary).

For Week 1's commentary, I had tried to comment on Teresa (Starr) Green's "Blog 1" post, but was previously unable. I can re-submit my comment now, although I am aware I may not reveice credit for this late post.

How might these technological errors effect my grade for this important component of the class? I understand that late blog posts are not accepted, and I want to be sure I can compensate for this loss. Thank you.

Erika Moul Emm66 (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Blog comments
Piotr,

Thank you very much for allowing me to re-post my comments. Again, I have commented on Teresa (Starr) Greene's commentary for Week 1 and on Angela Han's commentary for Week 2.

Thanks again, Erika Moul Emm66 (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Assignment 9/21
Piotr,

Just letting you know I have created a Wikipedia account( Kmm131), joined a group (3), finished the tutorial, and made an edit to the Pi Sigma Alpha Page. Hopefully, here is the diff link to the page

Thanks, hope I did everything right, this is my first time using Wikipedia to edit anything!

Kmm131 (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit and User Name
Piotr,

Just letting you know I have created a wiki account (JFA7), joined a group, finished the tutorial, and made an edit to the University of Pittsburgh School of Information Science page. I think this is a link to the DIFF, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Pittsburgh_School_of_Information_Sciences&diff=prev&oldid=315233935. I hope I did everything right! If not, let me know. Thanks!

JFA7 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

New Account
Piotr, I have successfully created my user name (ShaqSmith), finished the tutorial, and inserted an edit within the tutorial sandbox. I have also made an edit to the description to Maxwell's article about his album entitled BLACKsummers'night. However, there is still one problem, I was absent when we created groups. I need to join a group.

ShaqSmith (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Created Account
Mr. Konieczny I have created an account Eric wisniewski. Thank you Eric wisniewski 06:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Constructive Edit on Wiki
I have constructively edited a page on Theorem and how it applies to mathematics see reference to David Poole, Linear Algebra A Modern Introduction. Eric wisniewski 07:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Global Societies Stuff
I am Bethany Gayda, username bsgayda This is our group, Team Cool
 * Bethany Gayda
 * Rachel Croitoru
 * Jeremy Diebert
 * Logan Mlakar

I have not made an edit yet, I cant decide what to even look for. but when I do I'll let you know. Bsgayda (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am Logan Mlakar and my user name is Tuna12 as I have edited it on the project link. I also edited information on my high schools wiki page if you want to check it out it is Pine-Richland High School. Tuna12 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Page edit
I just edited the page on Mercersburg, PA by including the opening day of the ski season at Whitetail ski resort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercersburg,_Pennsylvania

~Mariah Blake~

Hello This is Sean McNamara In your Global Societies class. My Username is Seanmac33

Seanmac33 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Sean McNamara

Hi my username is angelalhan and I joined group 7 and I have completed the tutorial and have used the sandbox.

Angela Han Angelalhan (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Larson
I am Stefan Larson, my Wikipedia name is Gxlarson. I made an edit to Wikipedia a few weeks ago and notified you on your talk page, but it got archived. I edited Aristotle's Parts of Animals, and I have a diff of the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parts_of_Animals&diff=313678440&oldid=295523740. I also have finished the tutorial, and edited in the sandbox. I am in Group 4, we would like to make, i.e. expand, an article on the Pax Mongolica. Gxlarson (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Made an account
my account name is dagypt and I joined group 7. My name is Dominique AgyptDagypt (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Made an edit
I also made an edit to the Kansas State Board of Nursing page by adding an external link. Dominique AgyptDagypt (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Shaq Smith gROUP
Hey Piotr,

This is Shaquel Smith. I am in the group with Bummy Smith, Helena Li, and one more person

ShaqSmith (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In re the question on the Evidence page
Were you referring to me or Novickas? -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 04:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Warsaw Uprising (1794)
I have nominated Warsaw Uprising (1794) for Featured article review due to a number of issues that currently exist in the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

 * From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
 * News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Donald Duck
Hi Piotrus, I just read DonaldDuck's statement and your reply. Basically he stated that he edit-warred with your team, you provoked him into breaking 3RR, reported him, got him blocked twice, second time indefinitely, essentially he blamed you for making him look like a vandal. Now your counterargument that certainly an opinion of the repeated vandal DonaldDuck known for his multiple revert violations is without merit, because well, you know, he was a vandal. He said you made him vandal, and you now insist that he was vandal umm by his own nature, a naturally born vandal? What articles did he vandalize (as tsarist autocracy obviously does not count)? Edit wars take two to tango, but obviously in his 17 revert spree he and Altenmann tangoed with you, Radek, and Digwuren. If anything it does not look too good for your team either. (Igny (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

Request for emails
Piotrus. You insist that there was nothing wrong written in the mailing list. Can you send me copies of emails from this list, where my name is mentioned and give me permission to publish quotes of them on wiki (with all personal details removed, and only wiki usernames left, of cause). I ask only for small fraction of emails where I was discussed. It would be several emails in December-January 2009 and in May 2009. If you are clean and wrote nothing wrong, then providing me with this small fraction of emails about myself should not be a problem for you.DonaldDuck (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Donald, that argument doesn't fly. Just because he has nothing to hide doesn't mean he should automatically let you rifle through his underwear drawer.  And on the flipside, just because he doesn't let you rifle through his underwear drawer doesn't mean he has something to hide.  Further, specifically asking him to cherry pick emails from the supersekrit email list opens him to accusations of sterilizing the emails for his own benifit.  Regardless of his guilt or innocence, what you are asking of him is both rude, invasive, and a lose-lose situation for him regardless of his answer.  If I were Poitrus I would ignore this as unnessesary baiting along the classic lines of asking when he stopped beating his wife. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's my intention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody who is not a party can explain the difference here?
Concerning Proposal 2 by Radeksz,

You asked the difference between Alex's not abusing admin power and your not abusing admin power with you being desysopped and him not. I'd like to take a stab at that.

Why you were:

You were desysopped (temporarily I might add) because evidence was given which showed you were repeatedly and intentionally coordinating activity which subverted wikipedia's policies. Where IF TRUE (and I will not speculate about the validiy of the evidence, Arbcom will decide that and there is little you or I can do about it) your calls to edit war places you and your friends under meatpuppetry rules where the actions of the whole can be placed as the actions of one. So while you evaded 3RR, all of you put together did not. This means that you ALLEGEDLY sought to disrupt the policies you were entrusted to keep, hence the temp. desysop that is acknowledged as unusual but nessesary.

Why he (even in your eyes) shouldn't be:

He passed on sensitive information to a bunch of people. Some of those people should not have been included. It is arguable that this was a simple mistake, but the real point is that being entrusted with and protecting sensitive information is not an admins specific job. Yes, he should block people who do distribute such information, but as an admin he was not specifically entrusted with that duty and technically did not breach that trust. Were he a checkuser, that would easily demonstrate his inability to be trusted with sensetive information and he should be removed from that job. That has little to do with the admin mop, however.

Note: I do not nessesarily endore any of the opinions I am speculating on here, I am simply trying to enterpret a situation from an outsider view, which is what I believe you asked for. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting points, I'll just say that if we are dealing with issues of community trust, than Alex certainly failed the trust of many editors who would think that he, as an admin held to high standards, would respect their secrecy of communication, and would not distribute information in violation of WP:PRIVACY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly valid. I don't expect this breach in trust to be ignored,  but I suppose its one thing to breach trust you were specifically entrusted with and another to simply act in an untrustworthy (but unrealated) way from time to time.  The former will get you slapped immediatly, while the latter needs time to pile up before being acted on.  My understanding of the situation is that you currently suffer from both maladies, as I believe you yourself have lamented the constant 'throw something at Poitrus till a bad rep sticks' situation you find yourself in, warrented or not.  198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This cannot be over-emphasized: mud sticks. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize, but I missed a bit of sublty in your previous statement, having reread the links I see you are pointing out that he violated wikipedia policies he was entrusted to police. You will have to forgive me, as a lowly IP I haven't specifically read them all.  This, I admit, does make this untrustworthy act more relevant to his job.  Whistleblower protection discussions aside, I believe that it still only makes that particular act a bigger rock but one that still needs to be part of a bigger pile before calls for his head are heeded.  I do maintain that such an act would be a huge blackmark if he ever tried to become a checkuser or arbcom member, but less so for an admin. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:1660 Polish Russian War.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:1660 Polish Russian War.PNG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Historical Sociology
I know you're quite busy, but you might be interested in this article I made: Western Ukrainian Clergy.Faustian (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Hungarian Revolution of 1956
Im sure you've seen your share of these. If you have a moment, could you please take a look? Thanks in advance! István (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Map of Torun fortress.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Map of Torun fortress.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Extra Credit Blog Post
Hi Piotrus. I made an extra credit blog post this week (in addition to the normal post). It's about the G-20. Heres a link http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/09/reflections-on-revolution-in-pittsburgh.html -Stefan Larson Gxlarson (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus I also made an extra credit blog post today. I was able to volunteer for g-20 at the hotel the korean embassy was staying at. I wrote about what I saw on the way and during my shift. Here's also a link http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/09/g-20-experience.html -Angela han angelalhan (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mapa walk - Kolobrzeg - Sroga.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mapa walk - Kolobrzeg - Sroga.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard
That was fast! Like you I think if you can get other editors to participate at/watch that page (which may take a bit of prodding/spamming of talk pages and other fora) it will help to calm tensions over EE related articles. Before this ArbCom case is over I'm guessing there will be more animosity, accusations, recriminations, etc., but perhaps the case will also serve as an impetus for a "fresh start" when it comes to debates on these topics. Thanks for already making efforts in that direction. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent prods
Regarding your recent prods of Znakhari, Zawlanie, Znak (Polish mythology), Czarownica, Knots in Polish mythology, and Lechebnik. I'm pretty sure these were good faith attempts at creating articles out of the list of red links at Polish mythology. If these weren't meant to have their own separate articles then they probably shouldn't be linked right? Anyways, rather than deleting these, I redirected them to the main article Polish folk beliefs. But are you sure it won't be better to just merge these stubs into Polish folk beliefs? -- &oelig; &trade; 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Elections to the People's Assemblies of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus
Thanks for your kind words, I hope it is interesting. Regards. Tymek (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jan of Głogów
If you can spare a moment, I have some doubts about changes introduced by Matthead into the "Jan of Głogów" article. You know the history of that part of Europe better than I. Nihil novi (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

PD-Poland
Sorry, I must bother you once more about Polish image copyright stuff. You seem to have been involved in shaping the PD-Poland template and its application. That whole template and its category seems to be based on the understanding that the short terms of protection under the old (pre-1994) law are still in force for items produced during that period, and that the new 1994 law with its longer terms of protection didn't affect them retroactively. However, in the 1994 law I read:


 * Art. 124.-1. The provisions of this Law shall be applicable to works: […]


 * (3) the protection of which has expired according to the provisions hitherto in force but which, under this Law, continue to enjoy protection, except with respect to the period between the lapse of protection under the law hitherto in force and the entry into force of this Law.

Which, if I am not seriously misreading it, would appear to mean that the 1994 law did retroactively restore copyrights that had already expired under the old law. So the whole liberal 10-years thing about old Polish photographs would be invalid.

Are you aware if this has been discussed somewhere at some point? If I'm not missing something important, we may need to reconsider the whole PD-Poland thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion. Actually, I found in the meantime that there once was a deletion discussion at Commons about it (it's linked to from the corresponding commons:Template talk:PD-Poland). It was a bit messy but I think I finally got the gist. So, it seems there was a court ruling at some point saying that the 1994 law only restored the copyrights of items that had literally "ceased to be" copyrighted, i.e. that had been copyrighted at least initially, but it didn't retroactively create copyright for those that never were copyrighted in the first place, and that would go for photographs initially published without a copyright notice. That's something. Only, it would seem it places us under the responsibility of being very careful with source documentation, because we would need to prove that the initial publication actually was without a copyright notice. Do you happen to know how this is handled; does "copyright notice" mean the individual image had to be marked for copyright, e.g. in an image caption, or would it also count as copyrighted if it was published in a book and the book as a whole had a notice? Messy stuff. Unfortunately, many of the historical photographs currently uploaded under that tag seem to have no source information at all, let alone source information that documents all the way back to the initial publication, as it should. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gross violations of ethics
I've never known Thatcher to overstate evidence. If even a fraction of what he said is true, you need to immediately resign. That would be the first step on the path to restoring your reputation. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Map of Torun fortress.jpg listed for deletion
Hi Piotrus, I've declined the speedy, and opened a discussion at WP:FFD. PhilKnight (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSRP
I just wanted to ask if you were interested in joining WP:PSRP. I'm trying to take your advice on it, and continued advice, even membership, sure would help. You have the kind of experience that the project needs. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

 * Opinion essay: White Barbarian
 * Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
 * Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
 * News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

logo dispute
Hi Piotrus, as you are an administrator with interest in WP:PITT, university articles in general, and judging by your banners, copyright paranoia, I would like to draw your attention to a dispute that I believe has been inappropriate and prematurely taken to the administrators noticeboard at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Most concerning to me is that, regardless of whether this particular editor is correct or not in his interpretation of fair-use, he is engaging in behavior that attempts to avoid typical dispute resolution via WP:DISPUTE, and has essentially admitted as such. In order to resolve this in a timely manner, any comments you have regarding the circumstances and the issues, for or against, or perhaps moving the debate to a more appropriate location would be appreciated. Thank you, CrazyPaco (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I should clarify that the debate is whether these logos belong in the corresponding university articles at all, not merely the aesthetics of their location in infoboxes in particular. I believe the issue is a WP:UNI-wide one, with the Pitt article as the battle ground, regarding the appropriateness of the use of such popular/athletic logos, such as File:PittPanthers.png. In my mind, the debate comes down to whether the utility that those logos serve in providing a useful identifying mark to the reader would adequately justify their fair-use. This has typically been the case in most university articles, see the FA Michigan State University, until the initiation of the recent wave of edits. The counter argument seems to suggest they violate WP:MOSLOGO because they represent just the athletic teams, and not the university as a whole. I think the arguments for and against are laid out in the noticeboard discussion so I won't further rehash them.  The other issue is the appropriateness of it being brought to the noticeboard in the first place, instead of through usual dispute resolution processes. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, btw, you wouldn't consider helping to make a better translation for the Polish language University of Pittsburgh wiki article would you? Also, I think it is great you are using Wikipedia in your class. I'd be interested in hearing how you integrated it. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra Credit Post
Hi Piotr,

I'm just letting you know that I added a post to our blog concerning the G-20 and some related information. Feel free to take a look at it. Jcl41 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Jon Luchansky

Hi Piotr,

I wrote an extra credit blog post last week but I was wondering if you saw my message that was posted in Extra Credit blog post. -Angela han angelalhan (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelalhan (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for File:Kazimierz_Pelczar.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kazimierz_Pelczar.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard
Your own rules for the EE/N state, "Add the date, but do not sign...use five tildes instead of four"; However, you signed your entry here. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Kazimierz siemenowicz.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kazimierz siemenowicz.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 10:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Group 1 Project
Group 1 would like to take the page Polyethnicity for our assignment.

Nec26 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Grade
Dear Piotr,

My name is Teresa Green and I did not receive credit for my extra credit blog on G-20. Do I need to send you a link to prove I did it?

Thank you, Teresa Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hellow!
How are you? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lodz
Hi there. I was the one who requested this, and I do not at all think that these changes are contentious. Or if they are, then there are people who miss the point of Wikipedia's WP:Use English concept. The point you referred me to does not actually make any referce to anything that supports your points. In fact, it supports my point, when it says, as the very first sentence: "Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does." There are very, very few English writers who even know how to create the appropriate diacritics on their keyboard, let alone would do so if they could. Yes, that is an unreferenced statement, but if we're being calm about the situation, I think you'd agree that it's true. In addition, it should be noted that there were actually two requests for the change that was made, without anyone disagreeing with them - no one - zero people - expressed support for continuing the use of the diacritics. At the same time, I think we should focus on getting agreement on this, not simply trying to "score points" in some argument - How can we work forward on this to sort it out? AshleyMorton (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned here
[]