User talk:Piotrus/Archive 32

Władysław Odonic
Hi Piotrus, I just finished the translation of Duke Władysław Odonic from Polish to English. Please check it out and let me know your opinion. Thanks!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

hey Piotr
I fixed the line u told me to fix. I dont understand how and where all of my information went. None of my sources are cited anymore and i think thats why i got that copyright complaint.

Thanks John EAster (Jeaster89 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

DYK nomination of Puławy Legion
Hello! Your submission of Puławy Legion 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! MuZemike 03:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional problems
Sociology of health and illness has problems as well. I've only tagged the section I know to be problematic, but there may be other problems. I will definitely not have time to do full text review of this myself, as it can take quite a while. :/ I've notified at User talk:T.starr.green. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First World has problems, too. :( Again, I've only tagged the one section, but there may be more. Some of the text was added here. Some was added here. I've left notice at User talk:JFA7. I'm afraid that I really don't have time to do an in-depth search of the text here to be sure that there aren't additional problems. I hope that MLauba will be able to help with that, but I'm already pushing it by editing now. :) I'm out of here in about an hour, and I'm not done packing. Bad timing. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I wish I could but I just can't do it in the time I have left. :( It's a bit time-consuming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm glad you've found some additional issues. I'll be happy to help review for more, but it will probably be Sunday before I'm able to do so, as I won't be back to my computer until then. I don't expect to be able to get online often or for long while traveling. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Polukrbat
Lithuanians contribute a platoon to the battalion, thats why they were included in the infobox. Ceriy (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the e-mail
Checked my archives as well, and they just aren't there. Shall we begin again? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks
If you are going to restore redlinks to a list, please also include a source? Just saying that they have an article on a different language Wikipedia is not sufficient. Thanks, --Elonka 02:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Im so confused
I don't know what happend. the only thing i tried to do was to fix the copywrite problems. And the next thing i know our article is missing alot of stuff. and i thought someone else did that. I just need to know how to refix it. (Jeaster89 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Yes. I did see the link. and I believe i went in and fixed what i needed to. And also There was a line from my section that was directly taken from my soucre. but i thought if it is cited with a reference you were allowed to do that. i did not know you couldn't. Everything else was fine. (Jeaster89 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC))


 * The actions taken between the 24th and 25th just removed about half of the article wholesale. I reverted that, in particular since it actually left the copyright violation in place. I also added the copyright problem template to the second section. The part on Swine Flu was a minor problem, I rephrased the first part of the paragraph, then quoted Dr. Henry Miller's own words the way it's supposed to be done.
 * To clarify, what is acceptable is a short quotation of copyrighted text if it serves to illustrate a particular point of view. When that is done, it needs to be clearly identified as a quote (the way I did it is one among several, but it really sets the quoted text apart from the rest).
 * The reason we do that is to avoid that another contributor later on comes along, misses the fact that it's a piece of text copyrighted to somebody else and starts to rewrite it.
 * So it is not enough to just paste a sentence and then put a reference at the end, you need to clearly mark it as a quote from someone else.
 * You can read up more on MOS:QUOTE, the part of the Manual of Style that deals with quotations.


 * Now to the other issue, Africa. The lead sentence is still a verbatim copy / paste of the source.
 * The paragraph talking about life expectancy would be fine in its present state, except for one major problem: it has been written by paraphrasing previously copy / pasted material from FREDERICKSON, creating an unauthorized derivative work.
 * If nothing else, I hope this example will explain by itself why we insist the text be rewritten entirely from scratch in the temporary subpage. As this demonstrates, the biggest problem we face when copyrighted text is introduced in an article at some point in time is that it "taints" the work of all revisions coming after it.
 * I do not want to discourage you here but this does require rethinking the African section over again. What I'd like to suggest is to do the following: read the sources you have, and only the sources, carefully. Once you're done, open an edit window on the African or South American section. Delete everything but the text, it's a pain in the arse to rewrite those.Now picture yourself in the situation: you're in a classroom, and your professor asks you, out of the blue, to briefly explain to the class what the sources are talking about. You have no preparation time, you just stand up and explain what you took away from these sources.
 * Write that in the African and South American sections. Most importantly, behave as if the copy / paste function had never been invented in the first place. And you'll end up with useable text that is entirely your own. I'm looking forward to read that. Best, MLauba (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

extra credit blogposts
Hello, I only have one point in my extra credit blogposts while I have done two -

http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/11/polygamy.html

http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/10/origins-of-word-revolution.html

Rgg6 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade

 * Congratulations to us! I'm taking credit of this too Face-grin.svg. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw you don't read other talkpages ;) Thanks again for added me as co-author in the nom; I remembered that ;); and for placing the above template on my talkpage :) —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Message
Replied on my talk page. Ucucha 19:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions for arbcom candidates
Hi Piotrus, Thank you for your questions relating to the upcoming arbcom election, I have endeavored to answer them here. Please do not hesitate to post more questions if you see fit. Unomi (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Pittsburgh, copyright problems
Hi. I'm sorry, but Economy of Pittsburgh has problems, too. :( I've identified major issues in the first section and further down. I haven't yet identified who placed the content--if it was all the same individual--but I'm off to evaluate now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've identified one source of problems here, with text introduced by User:Jpd26. Here, with User:Rach3191, there seems to have been a misunderstanding. S/he put quotation marks around the text, which suggests that s/he might have believed such extensive use of copyrighted text is okay as long as you indicate that it is copied. Clearly, this would suggest no clear idea of how much change is required to create a new, copyrightable text, since s/he removed the quotation marks around that material after removing some of the text and placing other text in parentheses further down. I do not know yet if problems are limited to what I've found or to contribs by these two. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Copying the content to the subpage is probably a good idea, but we're not supposed to publish the material there, either. Do you think that your students would be able to work on it behind the template there? Or trusted to replace the template between sessions of working? My big concern at this point is that they not create derivative works, which can happen if they try to revise line by line. As I know you know, revising copyright problems can be very tricky for people who aren't completely familiar with how to handle sources. I can't imagine there was intentional intellectual property theft here, particularly with edits like Rach3191's. :/ Seems well-intentioned to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, often "sofixit" with copyvios means "so delete it", because we don't have the manpower working on copyrights to rewrite content. Removing the copyvios is imperative, and in addition to the regular couple of dozen copyvios we deal with every day, we've got literally thousands of articles to go through at WP:CCI. The CP process works to give contributors a chance to fix the article, but if they don't (and often they don't), frequently the content is selectively deleted and the last clean version (if there is one) restored after the seven day listing period. If there's no clean version, we frequently lose the article altogether. While you may have noticed that the top of my user talk page advertises continually for WP:Copyclean, we just really haven't attracted that many people who have time and interest in rewriting this text.


 * I want to be clear that I understand what you're proposing here. I haven't finished reviewing this one, but have adjusted the template at Food power. Do you propose that I simply remove the blanked content from the article, leaving the presumptive clear? If so, is it your idea that the students would work on new content in the article space? We would need somebody to verify that their revisions don't create derivative works. We already know they have issues with copyright.


 * As for identifying the individual, I typically try not to highlight that to reduce embarrassment, but I can see the value in situations such as this.


 * Obviously, when a problem is first discovered, it can take considerable time to verify that the rest of the content is clear. I could not just blank the sections in which I've located issues, for instance, before I've verified that the contributor (or contributors, in both of these cases) have not violated other copyrights as well. Going through an article's history can be very time consuming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, I'm one of the copyvio cleanup crew and have MRG's talk page watchlisted.

I don't know how practical or feasible this is, but I for one would be extremely interested to get some feedback from your charges on what their reactions were when they were first confronted with the fact that their contributions were in violation of our copyright policy. What was their line of thought / reasoning when they added the material? Did they understand the concerns raised? How did they come to terms with them? How did they integrate notions like derivative works or WP:Close paraphrasing? How did that affect their rewrites, and their subsequent contributions? What proportion among them believes in good faith that they did nothing wrong?

This kind of insight could be invaluable to us to help us re-think how we communicate our policies and the related guidelines, and I think we'd all love to hear these stories, if collecting them were doable. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to but in here as well but I just found this conversation important. My group members that are working on the Economy of Pittsburgh with me as well as myself I think are having difficulty because of the subject of the article. We have always had good intentions not trying to unlawfully use any material, but we are unsure on how to paraphrase because most of the information is statistics. This is why I feel some of the edits are too long of quoted material. There just isn't many other ways to say what we find. What I am getting from this is that pretty much every thing should be rewritten in our own words/paraphrased and at the same time contains no original material. This is just very frustrating being a new wiki editor and I think wiki could have easier ways to go about this.Tuna12 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll just note here (redundantly, since I did so as well at my talk page) that I'm only aware of one other issue in the list at my talk page, and it's already been overwritten with clean content. I think that the rest are free at least of major concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

proto-globalization
Your talk page is certainly quite cluttered with complicated GA review arguments/questions! I'll just join the melee, if that is ok:

you wrote: 'The time of the Roman Empire and it trade links with China are certainly notable in the context of proto-globalization, as they form one of the early world systems. That said, this is relevant to archaic globalization, and proto-globalization covers a much later period, and as such while the article could use a section summarizing the earlier history of globalization, it should not be the article's main focus.'

You're right of course, & I will try not to make too-whiny of excuses for my lack of making a better effort to draw my written/researched section on "pre-proto-globalization" to proto-globalization, except to say that (a) I was really having trouble focusing on the scope of how to sort of "introduce" the world system as it lead up to proto-globalization, and kind of wussed out there and just picked my favorite nations/the ones I've encountered in my college education thus far. (as a Classics minor I am very biased as to the influence that the Roman Empire had on the modern world, and from our article reviewer's opinion I can see others do not share my view...also does this count as "original research" in that area, which is against wikipedia's policies? I thought it might but I have not yet been accused of this) (b)communication between my group members has been limited and as you can see the organization & flow of the overall article is less than stellar in terms of each "sub-topic" relating to the other/what proto-globalization is.

My real concern is, should I completely rewrite & refocus my section at this point? Or cut it entirely and maybe focus on editing & fixing the sections researched and written by everyone else? I ask because, of course, I am concerned for my grade on this assignment. :-/ Toasterlyreasons (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All my email accounts have been disabled.
All my email accounts have been disabled that I used to connect to Wikipedia. I am awaitng google's assistance. For now please be warned that if anything will be posted be my that seems strange I won't be me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMoloboaccount (talk • contribs)

Politico media complex
Well, at this point in a normal GA I'd fail them for lack of response. What do you want to do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you get them to start addressing my comments? I'd like to not run up against the deadline, and there's lots of work to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Piotr,

Thank you for the heads up regarding the EU section, I will rewrite it within the next few days. Hope you had a good thanksgiving! Kmm131 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pax Tatarica
Hello Piotr. How can we redirect Pax Tatarica to the Pax Mongolica article? Also, a guest editor has made some additions to our article, see Personnel Exchanges during Pax Mongolica; however, the graphic added to the section seems to be a scan of page 6 from this book: Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia by Thomas T. Allsen. What is to be done? --Gxlarson (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevermind on the re-direction. I just figured it out... --Gxlarson (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Copyright
Piotr - I am a bit confused. Does my entire section on outsourcing need to be re-written or can I just place the text in quotations marks to show it was directly taken from another article? Your help would be appreciated! JFA7 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Piotr - As you know i've begun work on re-writing the outsourcing section of our article. When will the copyright warning be removed from our article and replaced with the text i've been composing? Thanks! JFA7 (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Impact of Globalization on Women in China

 * Piotr, should we schedule a group meeting with you to discuuss our article? Ajr36 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
I'm so sorry I didn't notice your added question until just now when I went to review the page. I've given it a go and hope that addresses your concern. Shell  babelfish 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Meeting
Piotr,

Can I please schedule a time to meet with you ASAP regarding my section of Group 7's article? I am very concerned about the issues surrounding our article and my section and want to amend this situation without serious ocnsequences as soon as possible. Thank you! Emm66 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Question answered
Hey, sorry for the excessively long delay, but I've answered your questions for the ArbCom election. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like to know. Thanks! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Meeting
Yes, I can meet after Wednesday's lecture. Emm66 (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Piotr, I have made what I deemed the neccesary changes to amend the issues in my section, located here. Please let me know if you see any other issues concerning copyright, and I will fix them immediately. Our group plans to meet to improve the flow and cohesiveness of our article, as well as amend the issue of Western bias. Do you have any recommendations as far as how we might address the bias without completely altering our article? Emm66 (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Food Power
Piotr, Do we need to have a group meeting with you or something like that? is it still possible for our article to receive good article status? I am worried.

Dorothy R Smith (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well i have not made edits because the sections have been removed. When will the clean sections that shaq did not put up be returned? I cannot change the page numbers etc. that we need to do without being able to re read my edits and my information to find where i got it from.

Dorothy R Smith (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Because you like scary orange messages so much, here's one: I confirmed T:TDYK. Ucucha 20:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Meeting
Piotr,

Would you like to meet with me after tomorrow's lecture or next Wednesday's lecture? I was confused by your email. Thank you! Erika Moul Emm66 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article nominees currently on hold
How do we get rid of this hold?--Dam59 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Still remains - my #5. No hurry, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice that you had added another question. I've responded. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML arbcase
I've been watching (and occasionally commenting) on the EEML case, and we've chatted before about the nature of disruption, what constitutes real disruption, mudslinging, and other such topics. I've tried to answer yours and others questions about what the arbs think is so bad that you all need to be banned/topic banned in an open, civil, and objective manner. I've usually taken the position of the majority of arbs simply because of the nature of the questions, like saying "well they are topic banning you and calling 'this' the evidence, so apparently they are taking 'this' as disruption via , and here is what I concider a reasonable explination why". I admit that there are some things you are accused of that I consider credible, and others I consider very much lacking in the proof department.

This one, however, had me reeling. Taken from Bainers new FoF's.

argues to keep the article, "since it is a snowball anyway, and it may be a good proof that sometimes I disagree with some of you and agree with Offliner..." [20090625-0245]

Taken at face value, thats very damning. It is, at its very core, a prime example of the deceptive editing practices you have been accused of for quite some time and like a rising tide, it elevates the credibility of all the other accusations of bad faith. It undermines every attempt of yours to reach out to people that disagree with you.

Please do not take this as an effort to antagonise you. This is an honest request for you to rebutt the above statement as clearly as possible. I'm putting this on your talkpage because I don't think another 'ZOMG LOOK WHAT POITRUS DID!' post is worth anything on the case page (also I'm hoping in vain that a dozen people dont show up to jump down your throat before you get a chance to answer). I'm looking for your responce to this before I cast any jugdement. You at least deserve the oppertunity to defend yourself, and yes I am prepared to listen and take what you say seriously. I will not hold it against you if you choose not to answer, as that is your right. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear anon, this is a very simple case: I meant all I said in the email and on wiki. I am an inclusionist, I thought the article should be kept, it does show I and my colleagues can disagree, and it was a snow keep anyway... what am I missing? PS. You may want to use a browser with a spellcheck. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a reasonable answer. The jump from your interpretation and my interpretation is rather large, though, and I find myself having trouble making it.  I suppose the real answer is hidden behind the question of if you would have voted keep if was not already snowed.  That can't be told, of course.  I keep reading it again and again, and I try to take you at your word... but it still leaves a bad taste.  I'm sorry.


 * Feel free to archive this, I am satisfied with your answer and I'd rather it didn't lie around your talk page as flame bait. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am an inclusionist. I would never, ever vote delete, just because somebody asked me to, or to push a POV and destroy encyclopedic content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should clarify. I don't want what *I* said to become an invitation for other people to pile on with accusations and such.  198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) Well, there's really the point. Is the mention of something going on a "canvassing campaign" &mdash; which assumes the EEML members created the list for the sole purpose of edit-warring and for infesting WP with its mono-nationalist-lithic plague, or is it a group of editors interested in the same topical sphere who, in the end, express their own thoughts and bring their own sources to the argument and couldn't give a rat's ass whether or not other EEML members agree, let alone rush in to blindly support one another. (NOT!) As I've mentioned in the case evidence, there were many explitives over contentious issues, but as they were nevertheless done as personal expression, not personal attack, dialog could and would always continue. Sadly, in an atmosphere where timing is everything (based on timings I'm accused of responding to "canvassing" even though I read email once a week and check Wikipedia multiple times a day, sad but true), no one seems to care about the intent of the list, only the about the black and scheming hearts of its members.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

transwiki from pl wikipedia
By anybody yes please put your name down. We need Polish speaking editors to help list and trnaslate articles from Polish wiki into English. Given time Fritzpoll hopefully will add a Polish missing article directory for people to translate. Ideally we'd have a bot transferring articles too but.... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You can sign your name at the foot of WikiProject Intertranswiki/Polish. Yes basically the project is geared towards identifying the full list of missing articles from others wikipedias, see WikiProject Intertranswiki/Danish/Missing articles directory for instance which are bot generated (articles without en: links on the other wiki). Soon enough the Polish directory will be drawn up and make it easier for people to work through the lists. Well the idea is to translate articles in their entirety from the other language wiki into english but often the quality may not be brililant but the subject notable so it would be a combination of translating and finding external lsources to support what is being said. You then credit the author of the foreign wiki article on the talk page for example {translated|pl|Frederic Chopin}. There are two sides to the project one is starting missing articles and translating and the other is expanding existing articles which are tagged with e.g {Expand Polish}. I'm sure you've seen these about. Well the tag puts them in categories to be translated. Unfortunately we have an enorumous amount of existing articles which need translation let alone the mililions of missing articles in the various languages so what we need above all else is numbers who speak "foreign" languages and are able to consistently process articles from other wikipedias into english. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 21:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so as polish wikipedia is a different site to english. Ideally it would be solved as Kotniski suggested to have one encyclopedia available in different languages. as one project. That would maximise the contributors and avoid such probelms of uneveness between wikipedias but is not of course without its problems. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML
Please try and choose your words more carefully. The term stalking carries a number of negative connotations that are best applied in other circumstances. KnightLago (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, if you have questions on the case, it is best to email them directly to the committee. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about the email responses you have received. However, email remains the best way I know of to get your questions answered. KnightLago (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

On the development of articles
Is it possible that in a year, or five, or ten, some formerly private wiki is brought into the light that shows the original the collaborative development of articles that were later added to Wikipedia in one consolidated edit? If this is possible, was any consideration made to copyright situation on this private wiki? Did it take a few weeks to figure out how to manage the copyright? If it was quicker, I worry that copyright wasn't considered deeply enough. I hope the answer to the first question is "No" (or "Not to a great extent"), or else that those involved are much more clever than I am. I am having a difficult time imagining how to execute such a thing (especially with Europeans involved) were copyright is not a substantial problem. If you don't know of anything like this going on, please quash the idea if ever someone suggests it. The problems are very likely insurmountable and the longer the development of such articles are kept hidden the more difficult it will be to save the articles when it all comes to light.-- Birgitte SB  19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad to hear there is nothing to worry about right now, but I wish you might understand the basis of my concerns. I don't want to see EE articles end up in one of the giant copyright investigations because the people posting the edits didn't entirely write the creative content themselves nor giver proper credit to those that did.  Obviously I also have other entirely different concerns about how this might happen which I am ignoring for the moment.  But I thought this particular concern might be one you might feel equally to me as it directly concerned the fate of the articles.  I am worried it might be something those involved might not completely consider.  You are in the loop there, so please pass on these concerns if people ever consider doing something along these lines.-- Birgitte  SB  20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Writing up experiences
Sure. I'm not sure how much it will differ from describing a typical day at the CP job, but there are a few differences. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

EU
Piotr,

Hello. I know you made a comment about rewriting some of the European section and I did. I just wanted to make sure it is ok and falls within the guidelines of wikipedia. thanks Kmm131 (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you
For being specific instead of general in your FoF in the EEML case (I refer in particular to the Canvassing findings). Could you consider a rewording of the Disruption findings to resemble those as well? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I wanted to note that I've recognized the issue you've raised some time ago, and proposed a surgical remedy that gained community support (as preferable to a crude topic ban). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm working on identifying further examples. Re remedies, I will vote on those once I've finished with the findings of fact, however I'm unlikely to support a remedy based on that proposal. --bainer (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. As long as we are operating on the level of specific examples instead of vague generalities, it should be possible to clarify certain things and learn from errors made. I find "seven instances of canvassing" much, much more helpful than vague "edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution". I see that you are supporting this proposal - you aren't going to propose an alternative with a better wording (specific, numbered examples) then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for pointing out the specific diffs. I find it very helpful in understanding the situation. I do have however one clarifying question: would it be correct to say that many of the diffs listed where not disruptive due to their content, but where disruptive due to the way they originated (i.e. being improperly canvassed)? For example this edit introduced a better referenced version that has been stable for the past 4 months; or here I was restoring referenced information removed without explanation by a now-permbanned editor. Hence the content-improving quality of those edits is not disputed, but the problem arose since they involved improper solicitation (canvassing)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To an extent, yes. In the first example you give, had you and Molobo worked on the Kr%C3%BCger material on his talk page (which of course, he could still access even as a blocked user), then there would not have been this problem, as the process could have been subjected to all the normal editorial scrutiny. With regards to your second example, the substance of the content is of no concern to the Arbitration Committee; rather, what concerns us is you asking for other people to perform reverts for you so that you would appear not to be performing many reverts. --bainer (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK
I left some comments at T:TDYK and T:TDYK. Ucucha 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Graph and Chart
I was asking you in class if I was able to use a copy and pasted chart and graph. I have found a graph from a government web site that I should be able to use I just have no idea how to put it on as well as the chart I found any help for getting them on the article page at a bigger size than the current thumbnail we have on the page would be appreciated. Thank You Tuna12 (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sociology review
Hi Piotrus. I have significantly improved the sociology article since you last gave your opinion as to whether or not it might be worthy of GA status. Would you care to reconsider, or lend further advice? The scope and topics section, in particular, has been greatly improved. If you yourself know a lot about sociology, which I assume you do, bearing in mind your reviews of Erving Goffman, Anthony Giddens, etc, why not help get the article get to the next level - I appear to be the only one editing it apart from vandals!!--Tomsega (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

extra credit blogpost
Hello,

I have done an extra credit blogpost regarding nationalism versus patriotism here: http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/12/nationalism-versus-patriotism-extra.html

thanks Rgg6 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Extra credit wiki edit and late blogposts
Hi Piotr! I just wanted to let you know if you didn't already, that I finished the western bias piece for our article and removed the literature section as our group decided. I changed it around and added somethings and I posted it to the article Chinese literature. I made comments on that talk page as well so hopefully this will count as extra credit.

Also, I know that I still have comments and blog posts that you told me to make up during thanksgiving. I am working on them, but I tried to get this project done first as well as studying for two finals that I have so I will be able to get all of the missing blogging assignments completed by Friday evening, early sat for partial credit. Is that going to be okay?

Please comment on both of these issues and leave me a message. Thank you! Ajr36 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Periphery
Piotr,

I've completed the sections for the history and development section. I was hoping to receive some feedback on the article as a whole as it has been nominated for almost a week now. I would appreciate any response from you or another reviewer. Thank you. -Jon LuchanskyJcl41 (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Poland
Yes you did. Thanks. I just remove messages which are shouty rather than nice. Sorry I deleted your nice message. Thanks.Starzynka (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question to arbs: new FoF on Disruption - alternative or not?
I've replied there. Paul August &#9742; 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ec wikipedia edit
Hello Piotr. I've made some additions to Organization of the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan: --Gxlarson (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews
I failed Politico-media complex, but you should consider giving the student who worked on the Radio section a higher grade. They did great work.

Also, I'm inclined to pass Polyethnicity after they do a bit more work on the lead. That other user who commented will probably take it to GAR, but in my opinion they are asking too much for a GA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One, possibly two, of the three outstanding articles that I am reviewing could make GA if the corrective actions are completed. I note that the deadline is today. I suspect that you are running five or so hours behind UK time. So, when is the "drop dead" date, say as a hypothetical example I awarded GA 9 am UK-time tomorrow would it count? Pyrotec (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kurzweil singularity bookcover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kurzweil singularity bookcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back
Piotr, Thanks for the welcome back. My main active is fighting bad media coverage of Poland and Poles hence I have little time for editing Wikipedia but trying again to do enough edits worth putting me on the active list of editors. If you ever find yourself with time and interest in fighting for Poland in the media then contact me. Jniech (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

1st Armoured Division (Poland)
Pls take a look at my Request for Mediation, and even improve it if you are willing. I guess you've done one of these before. I havn't. Many thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Group reviews
Piotr,

I was unable to attend last Friday's class (Dec. 4), and I was wondering if I may have missed the group members' reviews; if not, how are we going to go about doing this, as per your grading outlined in the syllabus? Please advise. Thank you! Emm66 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I was wondering if you could email me my grade? I had asked you about this when we met two Wednesdays ago and also emailed you, but I never heard back.  I am confused by the CourseWeb grading and am concerned since tomorrow is to be the last day to turn in blogs, extra credits, etc. Please advise at your earliest convenience - I want to do as well as possible. Thank you! Erika Moul Emm66 (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotr
I wanted to let you know that I have published all of the blogs that were still needed and have made the comments that I hadn't made previously. Blog 5 and the four from Leo Africanus were previously done so they aren't with the ones that I had did today but they are there along with the comments for those sections. Also in regard to the wiki assignment. Nikkimaria said that she would be able to pass our article if we could fix minor the copy editing and tone problems. We have tried to address this problem but I am afraid that it is too late to get it completely corrected. I don't know what else to do. Is this going to hurt our grade? Ajr36 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Group 7 Review
Piotr,

In regards to my previous message, I have emailed you my review of my fellow group members in Group #7 - "Impact of globalization on women in China." I apologize for the late submission, but I was unaware that we had completed the reviews during the lectures that I had missed due to the swine flu. Thank you for your understanding. -Erika Moul Emm66 (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Favour please
Hello. Can you do me a favour and upload pl:Plik:Ryszard Legutko.jpg onto Commons? I could do it myself but I'd have no way to tell if it was right or not. Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the upload onto Commons was right because I can't read the original. It seems to say that Polish Senate images are GFDL. Is that right? That's terribly progressive compared to the ridiculous Crown Copyright provisions here. And are you taking a complete Wikibreak, or will be around on plwiki? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if the license is ok I would think I can do the rest (and then delete the dubiously licensed version from here), thanks. And no, I wouldn't have expected the recent fun to have filled you with wiki-enthusiasm. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are interwiki links from nowcommons, so I have tagged the image already. The Polish version is neater than ours, it shows a thumbnail. Worth stealing, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Since I know you have in the past expressed a positive interest in the Saga of the Skolian Empire, I though I'd inform you about this discussion: Articles for deletion/Jagernaut. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Extra Credit
Piotr,

I have made an extra-credit Wiki edit here. I plan to do more as well as extra credit blog posts to make up for missed posts. Thank you! Erika Moul Emm66 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also done some extra work I hope to get credit for. Check out this new article I started since the link in my group article showed up as red. I felt surprised that this article was missing. check it out! --Dam59 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also done some more blog posts. So please check them out!!--Dam59 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sociology of Health
Hey Piotr I have been working on Wiki this week but our reviewer has not been commenting back. I have no idea if the things i corrected are good enough to be marked as complete. I think they are, but she is pretty hard so i could be wrong. Also I have a 19 out of 25 points for my wiki and the rest of my group got the full points and im very sure I did everything on time. But the grade book hasn't been updated since Oct. 1st so maybe it just didnt update yet. (173.75.156.83 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Re: Final assessment of educational GARs
In regards to Sociology of health and illness, I'd say it falls somewhere between B and C class, probably B if you want to be generous. They've done some good work with it, but it's not up to GA standards just yet. I notice that the poster above thinks I'm being too hard on them, so feel free to look at the review and adjust your grading accordingly. (Also, for some reason I'm unable to add comments to earlier sections on this page...was that intentional?) Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I passed Polyethnicity
Could you add it to WP:GA? I'm not in a good situation for computer work right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

15th Poznań Uhlans Regiment
I've added some ref's. But I'm sure that article needs spelling and grammar check... Any other suggestions? Radomil talk 15:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK article
Thanks. I was thinking about that but unfortunately there are not so many sources online about him, and when they are it's mostly trivial stuff. - Darwinek (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Władysław Gurgacz
Hello! Your submission of Władysław Gurgacz 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! Calmer  Waters  02:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you get what you were looking for ,,,
... in reply to this? I could help out with some of the dull routine stuff if you didn't get enough takers. Please reply here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. If you would be willing to help, this would be much appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. Can you email me what you still need doing? I think you have my address, but if not it's my wiki name at gmail point com. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLV (November 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Big fan(s)
Hi Piotrus, thanks for all your excellent work over a long time. This is our (anon) thanks for the very important work you've done. You broke new ground.

If you take a wiki break, so be it, it's important for mental health - wiki can be very addictive! However, I hope you come back at a later time, (even years from now, you're still very young) to provide leadership.

Don't reply, there's no need, its just a thank you & a private recognition for your efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.6.155.198 (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Administration of WikiProject Poland
I have some questions which will help me take over some of the duties you carried out. Sorry if they seem stupid but I really am a novice when it comes to Wikipedia but as no-one else has offered, I hope you agree it best for me to give a go and hopefully learn quickly enough to do more good than harm.

General question a. Is it worth asking the arbitrators for extra time for you to hand over/give us some warning of closure/agree we can discuss off Wikipedia how to take over your duties?

Task related 1a – Deletion of articles Is it best to slant in favour of articles you personally agree should exist or be hard?

1c – Invite new members Do you have a list of invited members? Should I check each members talk page to see if you have previously contact them the way you did me?

6 - tagging appopriate articles Do I get involved in class and importance or simply ensure the empty template is correct? Jniech (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have started doing my new commitments. Checking the new Poland-related article feed, do you agree that Vatican Christmas Tree is not worth putting a tagged but 1628 (TV series) is worth being tagged?


 * I have tagged Matilda of Brandenburg (d. 1298). Do you agree with what I did?  Whilst you can still edit, I would appreciate any input as it a big learning curve and you have vast experience.


 * Thanks in advance for any reply Jniech (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Some more questions just to see what your experience view is of the following thoughts by me.

Questions about members

I would not invite User:John Vandenberg as he appears to be interested in business hence the NewConnect is connected to Poland but no indication he is interested in Poland.

User:Starzynka, User:Darwinek and User:Daaviiid are already a members.

What about User:Aldebaran69? His contributions make me think he is worth inviting but you chatted to him in the past.

The next possible member is User:ValdekZ who has written one very good article Ostrów Wielkopolski and a couple of other articles. Is it too early? Also he has no user page hence I would have to create it. Is this bad form to create another user talk page? Should I want for him to create it before approaching him?

Question about putting Poland tag on article

Does the 2010 Czech, Slovak, and Polish Figure Skating Championships warrant such a tagging as a Polish article?

The article Henry Golde I have put into the Polish Jews category. If you have time perhaps you could deal with the “This page is a new unreviewed article.” template, so I could follow the process a little.

At Ryszard Czerniawski I tag it as a low start article for Poland. In additional I put two templates as it had no references and I felt more biographical information on the subject was needed.

Question about importance level

I was wondering about Konrad II of Masovia, user: Daaviiid has made it Top on the importance scale the same as Armia Krajowa, Battle of Grunwald, Casimir III the Great, etc. Do you agree with this?

Question about deletion

The old synagogue in Ostrów seems a weak article. Do all synagogue, churches, etc warranty an article about them? In this case should I suggest the article is merged with The New Synagogue in Ostrow Wielkopolski to form one article?

General Question

Is there an easy way to find all categories connected to Poland? The article Yosef Babad (HTC) I don’t feel needs a tag as a Polish article but did add the Polish Jews category.

Re : Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.


 * User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
 * User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
 * User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
 * User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
 * The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:
 * User:Biruitorul, User:Dc76, User:Martintg, User:Miacek, User:Radeksz, User:Vecrumba, User:Tymek


 * User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
 * User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
 * The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
 * All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of academic journals


The article List of academic journals has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A list of all academic journals is not viable (the subject is way too broad), as well as redundant. We already have a category 'Academic journals', with a good subcategory structure. If this is meant as a list of "top" journals in each discipline, the inclusion criteria appear to be entirely arbitrary and subjective, so basically a vehicle for original research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

SS Tobruk
Piotrus, you posted a couple of years ago on the Reference Desk about SS Tobruk. The ship was real, and I'm currently researching the article, which will be at SS Tobruk once it is ready. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. It is an interesting article; I'll be looking forward to seeing it expanded. Please do nominate your article at T:TDYK, such an effort certainly deserves a reward. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you'll be able to improve it too once your ban expires. I've asked Coren about your editing the article and he is of the opinion that it won't fall under the editing restriction imposed by ARBCOM once your ban expires. Mjroots (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cracow vs Kraków
Hey there.

I added a new comment on the discussion page for Kraków, [[]]. I am looking forward to hearing your feedback on it... if you want to have a more in-depth discussion on my position I am open to discussing it.

Antman -- chat 23:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage
Hello Piotrus. Just to let you know, I've removed some formatting from your userpage as it was covering the "edit", "talk", "history" etc links at the top of the page (at least in firefox it was) - hope that's okay. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it if you could restore my poem. If it obscures something on smaller monitors, perhaps moving it down would do the trick. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support the restoration of everything Piotrus does to his user and talk pages. His pages remind us of the good old mid-1990s when every new proprietary non-standard extension to HTML, like colors, blinking text, Marquee element, sound etc., was used ad nauseam. Piotrus keeps that tradition alive. -- Matthead Discuß   17:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this user page should be much messed with. The obscuring should be no big deal and would seem to be an issue largely dependent on screen resolution. Piotrus, I'm good with such code and will work at restoring stuff if you grant your permission for me to take charge of your page for the next few months; Ryan, I'll certainly take concerns such as yours into account. Also, I noticed the 'top' subpage was just cut to remove some other positioned code, too; this also removed the row of icons listing article credits, which surely should be restored. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, thank you for your offer. I was experimenting with floats, but I didn't discover a way to make them scalable to different screens, which I think is the root of a problem. Another problem is that they interfere with readers ability to click on the items on their level or below, even if they are not obscured. If you think you can improve any parts of my user and talk page, you are more than welcome to try; my best solution so far was to use Template:Hidden to make them less obnoxious.
 * If I may ask, why this sudden interest in my user and talk page? While I do appreciate offers to make them better, it is my understanding that as long as they are not offensive, users have the right to do what they want with them. Finally, I'd like to ask that my semi-retirement templates are restored. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the reason behind the "sudden interest", but I have restored the page to the state Piotrus last edited it. It's ugly as hell and rather inconvenient to browse, but it should not be edited unless a user specifically asks for it (not the case here) or unless it's offensive in some way (not the case either).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:57, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the floater can be reduced further to just one or two expandable lines within a hidden template? I do have a tendency to try to squeeze as much as I can on my userpages; but I am also all for usability. Thanks for restoring the poem; since I am no longer in any shape to carry out most modifications myself I do give all interested editors permission to toy around with my userpages, as long as the intent is on making them more readable - not to gut them :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, I took a quick further look and will dig in a bit tomorrow. Your "top" subpage was offering a wikibreak message as well as the hard coded divs in the main page resulting in the two overlapping. I'm thinking you want just the "top" on on the talk page. The overlap issue *is* low screen-res dependent and I expect that's what Ryan saw. There's also a bit of template arg code left in there that seems like it could be tidied-up. Feel free to drop me an email of chat on s:User:Jack Merridew. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I took a few pokes at your page and believe Ryan's concern is addressed; the pages were ambiguously positioned vertically and I've opted for top: 8em. At some resolutions the message obscured the top UI jazz. The width is now 80% limited to 800px. I suppose I should check a few other skins; I expect things will work out. I made a bunch of other adjustments, too. I'll look into the other message that was on the talk page tomorrow. Happy New Years, Jack Merridew 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edits; and Happy New Year to you too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
I have made a request for clarification about whether Mass killings under Communist regimes and similar articles are included under the EEML topic ban. If you would like to reply, my query is posted at. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Piotrus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 46 of the articles that you created  are  Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:


 * 1) Zbigniew Karpus -
 * 2) Marcin Wolski -
 * 3) Marian Jurczyk -
 * 4) Janusz Pałubicki -
 * 5) Aleksander Hall -
 * 6) Karol Modzelewski -
 * 7) Alfred Miodowicz -
 * 8) Konrad T. Lewandowski -
 * 9) Damian Zimoń -
 * 10) Szarlota Pawel -

11. Maja Lidia Kossakowska 12. Tomasz Kołodziejczak 13. George Sanford (scholar) 14. Krzysztof Skiba 15. Władysław Pasikowski 16. Tadeusz Pieronek 17. Janusz Kurtyka 18. Janusz Tomaszewski 19. Bohdan Smoleń 20. Jerzy Hausner 21. Mirosław Golon 22. Ryszard Legutko 23. Lech Jęczmyk 24. Maciej Parowski 25. Marian Gołębiewski 26. Franciszek Gągor 27. Zdzisław Konieczny 28. Marian Konieczny 29. Ulrich Herbert 30. Włodzimierz Kalicki 31. Bogumiła Berdychowska 32. Rafał Wnuk 33. Jerzy Wiatr 34. Feliks Tych 35. Janusz Reiter 36. Burt Schuman 37. Józef Kupny 38. Grzegorz Motyka (historian) 39. Jerzy Tomaszewski (historian) 40. Adam Redzik 41. Zofia Romanowiczowa 42. Tomasz Szarota 43. Irena Anders 44. Stanisław Salmonowicz 45. Waldemar Rezmer 46. Bronisław Cieślak

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

AfD nomination of Richard Tylman
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Richard Tylman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation issue
Piotrus, do you by chance know what the abbreviation Józef Syruć pół. K. C. W. can mean? I know pol is for polkownik, but what KCW stands for?
 * Nope. May I suggest posting the question, with fuller context, at WP:PWNB? I am also not certain if your analysis of pół. is correct. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case amendment request
radek (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the old days, I would have simply taken 2-3 hours and referenced them all myself... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
<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) 04:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list
Per a motion at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

100 zlotych 1940 bank emisyjny w polsce
Hello,

I have a bank note from Poland, 1940 series E, exactly like the picture I've found here on Wik... and was wondering about it's value? I've had no luck finding any value information online.

Thanks Lacy lacymamma@comcast.net 76.29.63.169 (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
<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) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ze'ev Tzahor Auschwitz lie
[] Potrzebuje poparcia Cautious (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:History-line-German-boxcover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:History-line-German-boxcover.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
<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) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here
You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
<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) 13:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-periphery_countries GA review
I have put the GA review of Semi-periphery countries on hold as I feel based on a source check that there is a possibility the information as presented could be unreliable. I would like an expert on the subject to check over the article before resuming the review. See Talk:Semi-periphery countries/GA2.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update on the GAR. I'll try to help out as soon as I can. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojekt Na Commons! ma zaszczyt poinformować :)
[] Masur (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Article review

 * Greetings,


 * I would kindly ask You to review the article "Clan of Ostoja" as the main part of the article is ready and it was rated when it was not ready. I would appriciate Your help in this matter since it will guide me in improving the article. Also, I would be very gratefull if You could tell where to put this article in some discussion that can help me in improving the article. The goal with the article is that it will be rated minimum as "Good Article". Many thanks!


 * Best regards,

Camdan (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest asking for help at the relevant wikiproject. Unfortunately I am unable to offer further assistance at this point. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank You for Your kind answer! Camdan (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

--


 * Well, i dont know where to put this request to review rating, I feel lost! I wrote the guy that rated the article but no answer. Also, I would be very surprised if he have any clue or any education in subject he is rating witch would make whole thing quite strange. I really need some assistance in this matter because the rating should guide me to improve the article.


 * I believe that the subject I write about is really difficult one but I also know that there will be many more articles like that in the future so this article I make now would will be useful for others. As it is now, there is lot to improve but its so hard to do that alone. I cant put article for FA nomination to get some reaction (i stroke me to do that so something happens) cause the article far from that good.


 * Please help me with this one, at least I see some life here! :) Im relatively new here so its pretty hard to find right path, im using so much time anyway on Wiki. What takes for me 3 hours could take for You 3 minutes if You are used with Wiki. Time saving! :)

Camdan (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would really like to help you but the circumstances that make me unable to do so are beyond my control. Again, I'd encourage you to post your request here or on a similar forum. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I try this way and hope and pray! :) Thanks for taking time to answer! Camdan (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Research last call for cleanup before an RFC
I'm messaging you about this because you are listed as a member of WikiProject_Research. and myself are about to start the (poorly documented) process of submitting WP:Research for review by the community and I'm making one last call for cleanup and input. Please give the article a careful read if you have a chance. Unless major flaws are discovered, we'll be adding the rfc template to the talk page to start the process on March 2nd. That's one week from this posting. -- EpochFail (talk 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
<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) 12:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Luftflotte 1
An article that you have been involved in editing, Luftflotte 1, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Perseus71 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC) ==

Perseus71 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Konsultacja - x-lecie
Witam! Mam do Ciebie małe pytanko - rozumiem, że np. "10-lecie" należy tłumaczyć jako "10th-Anniversary", prawda? Tak zauważyłem np. w 10th-Anniversary Stadium, ale jak zerknąłem na, to zdecydowałem się, że upewnię się u osoby kompetentnej :) . Odpisz, jak będziesz miał chwilkę. <font style="color:black">TR (my talk) 20:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tak, 10th-Anniversary jest poprawne. Pozdr, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
<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) 00:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion
Two of your photos on Wikimedia Commons are listed for deletion. Please visit your Commons talk page. SV1XV (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
<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) 03:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Propsoal To Promote wp:quote
Hello, this is a friendly notification.

In the past, you supported promoting wp:quote into protocol. Currently, there is a discussion in an attempt to gather consensus to this ratification.

If you are interested, you can show your support there.

Thank you.174.3.110.108 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Kamil Giżycki
Masz większe doświadczenie ode mnie na enwiki. Dlatego prośba o opinię: czy ta edycja IP nie jest trochę POViasta i zbytnio literacka? Te wszystkie epic, hero, przez góry, lasy, bagna na oswobodzenie ? Ale może taka tu stylistyka obowiązuje? Pozdrawiam --Piotr967 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Obecnie mogę tylko doradzić skopiowanie pytania na WP:POLAND. Pozdr, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Suppressed research in the Soviet Union
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Suppressed research in the Soviet Union. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Suppressed research in the Soviet Union. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)