User talk:Piotrus/Archive 39

Hi
If you have spare time could you review NG Life as if it were a GA review? If you are too busy, I understand. Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its been quite a while, have you revisited Talk:Outlaw Star/GA1? DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Assignment
Hello!

I have a quick question for you. I saw that on our page (Marriage in the United States) that a student review was taken place on the review page. Some of the things this person said I have taken into consideration, however some things I may not agree with. Do you think I should make the changes this person said? I can explain my point of view to you in class on Monday, but I didn't know because the WIKI is mostly due on Monday. Just thought I would ask to see what you thought.

Thanks so much, Mookielynn18 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Joint custody DYK
I think we are officially good to go! --Kgw2 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for divorce
Natalie and I have asked our other group member mutiple times if she could find the information or when she is going to add it and she never really gives a straight answer. Natalie and I also seen that she has deleted the citations after the majority of her sentences that were added to her section. We are getting no response back from her and are concerned that she's going to affect our grades when we really put alot of effort into the project throughout the whole semester not just the day before the deadline and not sure how to get her to contribute and help us out... Thanks --Nas132 (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Celestyn Czaplic
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

good article nomination
My group just wanted to make sure that you would be able to show us how to submit for the good article nomination tomorrow after class without it being late. Please let me know when you can if this is possible. Thanks! Nll27 (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Family Honor citation issues
Before submitting our Good Article nomination, I wanted to make sure citations were clear. There appears to be an issue with one of them at the bottom of our page, but I can't seem to make sense of it. I'd really appreciate some looking into it before the article is submitted, if you can. Thank you!

Leishanda G. (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G.

Reply to citation issues
Thanks again for your help!

Leishanda G. (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G.

The Signpost: 14 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Natalia Tułasiewicz
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for divorce
Hello Piotr,

I feel that I made all the corrections that I was suppose to for the good article nomination. If you get a chance could you please review my edits? and leave any comments on my talk page. The person that did our good article nomination review would they be allowed to review my edits as well before the finale dead line? I dont mind asking him I just didnt want to screw something up, and then fail the nomination...

Thank you--Nas132 (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, for the future, you should scribble down "no bare urls, use " and "avoid citing every sentence." I've glanced over their articles and did some work on Single parent, and those are two major concerns. Res Mar 05:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much for promoting the article. As far as GA reviews are concerned, I wish I could help but I am not competent enough. My English is not very good in regard of style and my knowledge about working with (and especially verifying) sources and image licenses is really limited... Regards, --Gligan (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review - Single Parent
The reviewer for our article mentioned that we over referenced, however you responded by respectfully disagreeing. What should our group do?

- Steve Boser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stboser (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments with ~, and I'm not the reviewer, merely a passing editor. I can see the purpose of your instructor in avoiding dubiousness, but using a reference pattern that adds up to [3], [3], [3], [3], [3] is simply not helpful. What dubiousness are you removing, exactly? Res Mar 22:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, apologies for third person. Res Mar 22:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary Review
Hello,

I your preliminary review of our article Double burden you say "bold text is used improperly in the Types of Double Burdens section, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Boldface", what exactly do you mean by this? Is it done wrong? Or should it not be bolded at all?

Thank You, Jade.Richardson (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Corrections
I have made some changes in the Types of Burden section of Double burden. Is the formatting correct now, regardes to the formatting of the quotes I orginally had up there, and the bolding? I have moved the quotes, but I a unable to unbold "Work vs. Family" and "Family vs. School" because they are heading titles. Nothing else in that section is bolded.

-Jade.Richardson (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Customs war
Thanks for nominating the article, I will keep an eye on it. Tymek (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cross in front of the Presidential Palace in Warsaw
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Marriage in the United States
Hello,

I fixed one of the references in regards to Types of Marriages (under Sociology). However, when I went to fix the one regarding residential patterns, all the information I put in there was deleted and replaced with two sentences. What should I do?

KazzandraT (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Referencing Problem
The information was missing but I decided to put it all back in. I'm not sure who took it out or why but the information I originally had there, I typed back in.

KazzandraT (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Bride scam, what's with 'er?
Hey Piotr! I've finished the review of College and university dating, but can't seem to find the one for Bride scam. Are the students ready to submit? Buggie111 (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kiszone ogórki
A tag has been placed on Kiszone ogórki, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Joint custody
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Radzymin
Your Battle of Radzymin (1920) article is splendid. However, someone left 6 "citation needed" notes in the article. The criteria for B-class is that all text should be cited except the lead paragraph. Please review and fix. I also moved most of your pictures within the article. The pictures were all bunched at the top right and caused gaps to display in the article on my computer. I hope this improved things. Of course you may rearrange the pictures to more suitable locations. Djmaschek (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for divorce
Hello Piotr,

We have been making progress on our page. However, we are having problems trying to get someone to review our page that can correct our grammer. Do you have any suggestions? we tried to get an appointment at the writing center, and I tried to get an english professor to look over the page. The writing center is booked. I am still trying to get an appointment, and my english professor that I had is to busy to review our document at this time because he is to busy and our document is to big. The reviewer is giving us 24 hours...

Thanks--Nas132 (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

An appointment opened up at 5pm. I am able to go I might have to leave class early.--Nas132 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you--Nas132 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn: Good article review
Hi Piotrus!

I replied to your comments on the GAR page, and did a few hours of editing last night, fixing the notes.

Thanks again for your help.

Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did some more work. It seems that the remaining cases of blending references and notes occur in cases where somebody is likely to question some claim (or has questioned the claim about SDS and MLs); in these cases, the notes provide additional documentation or details that would interrupt the flow of the article, especially for knowledgeable readers. Perhaps before a FA nomination, there can be separation of notes and citations, but I was told that such a separation is not needed even for an FA (although it is liked very much by some). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Piotrus!
 * I added the requested reference.
 * Thanks again for your review, which re-ignited my caring about Wikipedia, and thank you for your helpful comments and patience.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:
Hi Piotrus! Sure, will do. My new semester started this week, and I've been having a hectic time in RL. I'll be away for a few days, but will check on the students when I get back. Bejinhan  talks   13:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Polish I Corps in the West
Thank Piotrus for creating this article. I Corps in the West is indeed a notable subject; nobody is arguing that case. But at the moment it's a one-paragraph unreferenced stub. Note that I did not remove the article or list it for deletion. What I would ask you to consider is leaving it as a redirect for now. All the information in the article is at Polish Armed Forces in the West. If you wish to add information, and more importantly, references, they can be added to the PAFW article, and the article resplit when it's reached a reasonable size. Would you mind giving me your thoughts on this? (and would welcome your thoughts, by the way, as our Polish-subjects doyen, on the changes I've been making to Polish Armed Forces and Polish Land Forces. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, appreciate the cordial discussion we've been able to have on this issue. Unlike many 'Eastern Europe' subjects broadly defined, I very much appreciate being able to have a reasonable back-and-forth argument. I repeat, my main point is that it's a short stub. If you were to do the full translation from the Plwiki, add the Polish bibliographical sources cited (if you trust them) and throw in a footnote or two, my objections would disappear. Hope that presents another option. It would be better for a Polish person to do this than me to try and do it half-arsed through GTranslate, but if you would like to start, I will happily help you improve the article, just as long as we have good sources (deadtree or no) and at least one footnote. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The plural of corps is corps, rather like the plural of sheep is sheep. Please, and I'm asking you nicely, again, with reference to W.B. Wilson's note at the bottom of Talk:I Corps in the West, DO NOT, please, stub every small Polish unit if you intend to just leave it there for five years with one para and no references. In plwiki focused on Poland that's completely expectable. We've though got getting on THOUSANDS of Category:Military unit and formation stubs. Please add the data to PAFW or PAFE, those can easily grow to 60kb or more, and we can split when the daughter article will be a reasonable size and be ready with footnotes etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do me a favour mate, let me have this one, as I've bent over backwards to help you with I Corps. Plwiki articles can easily be linked in text, as you'll see I've been doing with Polish Armed Forces. Please do NOT keep doing this - Polish Armed Forces in the West and Polish Armed Forces in the East can both be expanded mightly before we need to start creating stubs. We have nearly 4 million articles to keep in shape, and that dwarfs problems at other wikis!! Buckshot06 (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not understood my point. Neither W.B. Wilson nor I have argued that these units are non-notable. They are notable - one's a brigade and the other is a corps. The issue is management of small stubs. Were you to create full translations every time, with inline referencing, you would be getting multiple barnstars from me, instead of these messages. Do you realise that my special domain, military units and formations, how many articles have varied different kind of problems that are unfixable for lack of information or translations? To have to deal with this because we cannot communicate properly, creating even more stubs, is frankly infuriating!! We can fix this if we continue to communicate: please, if you're only going to translate one or two articles, put it in the main article (PAFW and E as appropriate). If you're happy to do the whole thing, with inline referencing, create the article, no problem. Think about this: how many other people but you have improved the stubs you have created to a reasonable state? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. This issue is bigger than the both of us. Just one other question: when I placed the talk notice on I Corps, I tried as hard as I could to word it in a way that was neutral. Did you feel I had worded in a partisan fashion? I really tried not to.. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate it. If you are interested in any further Polish military units, give me a yell and we can create it from the ground up as a proper article. Other things: (a) the talk page discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST and (b) have you run your idea about a authenticated-real-name-only edit option past User:Kirill Lokshin? If you wish, I'd be happy to push it with you a very long way indeed, like serious effort. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll notice I'm having a discussion with Mr Wilson separately about 34th Tank Division. 16th Tank Brigade was formed out of the remnants of 34th Tank Division. If you like, I will Gtranslate the plwiki article, work the information into 34th Tank Division, include a link to the plarticle, and then you can review the whole thing? How's that for an offer? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will work the redirects in carefully, and you can review my work, for necessary additions. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Saving the world (or wikipedia)
I mean User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom - Solution. How far have you canvassed this? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have some thoughts on the proposal at my talkpage from Mr Wilson. I think the proposed advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Would you be happy to write up a talkpage note for WP:MILHIST? Better coming from you than me. I think this is a great idea, and I want to push it - hard!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, because you're the originator. But I do see that you're named as well. Let me ask Kirill directly. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File: Germany 1937.png
Regarding upload to Commons. This is only a rough version of the file. I'm working slowly on a version with less heavy borders. But I think the "draft version" already got taken to Commons. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, professor
I'm taking a lot of incoming rounds at FAC, but that is fine. I had the first say and it is better if I let others see what it all means for them.

Yeah, Signpost would be good. Please make it happen if you know how. Of course the reporter can/should report on those that are critical (even scathing) as well. That's the role of the press. And I really think our little Signpost newspaper is something special in terms of reporting on the Wiki, not just being another talk page to debate or article page to form (sometimes collaboratively, sometimes battling).

Dar is going to make it a research project as well (I got lazy when he told me to and asked him, as I don't know how).

Peace.

RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality debate Blue Army (Poland)
Hello, I'm the anonymous user that started the neutrality debate on the Blue Army page, and now that everyone had a bit of time to cool off... I would like to indirectly address the problem, and raise a few issues that hopefully you could bring up on the discussion page of the Blue Army... this way my novice behavior is not discrediting the debate.

The first issue that struck me as being very bias is the quote by Pavel Korzec: "Haller's troops established a reputation as, in the words of scholar Pavel Korzec, "the worst torturers of Jews."

One of the most basic rules of objective editing is never to use words such as "best", "worst", or "greatest" to describe anything. To do so is to present a personal point of view. Not only that, anyone can easily discredit that statement by asking a simple question. Worst that who? ...the Roman Legions? ...the Tsarist authorities? ...even worst than the Wehrmacht, or the SS? Really? This statement simply has no place in an objective narrative, but when I stumbled on the page a few day ago it was the very first phrase in the debated section.

The second issue is that of stating seriously contested assertions as facts as noted on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page. No one is denying that atrocities against civilians such as the Jews and Ukrainians happened, and no one is denying the Lwów pogrom of 1918. But, what is contested (yet presented a undisputed fact on the page) is the participation of the Blue Army in some of those events. Serious and legitimate doubts are raised as to the location of the Blue Army which was not allowed to cross German territory from France to Poland until four months after the Lwów pogrom, as cited on the page through documented sources. And, the accuracy of those who remembered the events is also put into question by quotes like that Faustian himself provided "What is important here is not facts themselves but the way in which they have been seen and remembered" Finally, there is no mention in the disputed section of the fact that some of those events were exaggerated by international media for political purposes. Please see the excerpt from the Lwów pogrom (1918) page below.

The initial reports on the number of casualties of the pogroms were exaggerated, sensationalist in nature and often embellished.[37] The large casualty figures and supposed graphic details were transmitted through Berlin, where the new German government disseminated them for political propaganda reasons, hoping that they would affect the peace negotiations and prevent German territorial losses to Poland.[37] The Times, in December 1919 called the contemporary reports of the events "greatly exaggerated", while the Pall Mall Gazette blamed the German Reich for "machinations" and the exaggerations.[37] More accurate estimates from reliable sources, such as the Morgenthau report or American diplomats in the Polish capital, emerged only later.[38],, ''

In the end, I ask that those issues are addressed, and the article amended to reflect a more neutral interpretation of events in question. For the moment I will refrain from open discussion on the Blue Army Talk page... but, I ask that my concerns and recommendations be raised and addressed. Thank You. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Zeligowski Lucjan.jpg needs authorship information.
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Zeligowski Lucjan.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Gg first.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Gg first.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the di-fails NFCC tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe   ε  19:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Open Relationship Article Revision
Hi Piotrus, I'm a little confused at how exactly you would like us to cite our articles/books on our wiki article. We are the open relationship group. Do you prefer us to do the individual page notations when it comes to a book, or do you simply just want the source? Your last few posts in our discussion page has me confused as to what your expectations are. Thanks, and sorry to bother you. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Family Honor Page
I am writing you to let you know that I responded back to a good article reviewer. I will take his criticism into consideration and try to improve certain sections of the article when I return back. I will also look for theories about family honor and how it relates to sociology as we discussed after our last class. It is harder to work from home so when I return to campus I will begin to do research and make changes. I left some questions for the GA reviewer as well you can take a look and comment. You may understand what he's saying more clearly and be able to shed some additional light on the concerns he brought up. I also left a comment under the preliminary review section that I'd appreciate if you could take a look at and comment on. Thanks. Rojast07 (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for German–Polish customs war
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Michał Radziwiłł Rudy
Orlady (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 10:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for the comments on my section. I went through all of the points and tried to correct as much as I could. I hope it is better now.

Bed28 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation Error
We have a citation error at the bottom of our page Double burden and we are not quite sure what or where it is. Can you help us figure it out? Our reviewer asked if we could fix that first before he did the prose review. He also mentioned that he would have fixed but he couldn't find it either. Thank You Jade.Richardson (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Wastelands Interactive page
Doomtrader (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Hi, I would like to request for not removing the page for Wastelands Interactive. I don't think it's an advertise or spam etc. Could you please restore it for future improvement? Best regards, doomtrader

Re: Ambassador input
Hi, I'm looking through the students' articles right now. Since most of the concerns are being addressed at the respective GA nom pages, should I aid the students with meeting those concerns? Or should I leave them to make all the edits? There isn't much activity in the articles' talk pages at the moment. I'm really sorry I've been MIA. I'm trying to edit Wikipedia at a slower "rate" now due to time constraints. Coping with my semester work is taking up a bulk of my time. Bejinhan  talks   15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Solahütte
many thanks! please feel free to make changes in Solahütte you feel necessary and to nominate it. i have no idea how to nominate things and i'm somewhat intimidated about learning the process. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

PD-pre 1978
Basically, there were changes to the copyright laws that took effect in 1978. Previously, from the period 1923 - 1977, the item became public domain if it wasn't specifically marked as copyrighted. After 1977, items don't have to be marked copyright and thus won't revert to PD. There's another category re: the period from 1978 to 1985 and proof that copyright wasn't filed for, but it can be a big job or an almost impossible one if we're trying to find that information about an ad, etc.

There's also the aspect re: collective works-ads in magazines can't be claimed as copyrighted under any copyright for the magazine itself. They need their own copyrights and to have been marked as such. Have some links about things like this if you'd like them, as I do a lot of this type of work with photos and ads for free use here.

Google has tweaked its book searches and it's more difficult to get information like this now. :-( It used to be that you could initially search for Life magazine, then after that, do an advanced search which lets you set specific fields for the search.  What you need to do now is first search on the magazine title, then grab the first one shown because advanced search is not an option any more until you get to that point. :-(

You can also search eBay for ads and use those if you can view a copy large enough to determine there's no copyright mark. Kellogg's was sort of tough with copyrighting their material for years. There's a long-gone radio show they sponsored, Don McNeill's Breakfast Club, and all of the promotional materials, including the listener postcards, were marked as copyright. If you want to use any of the material now, you would need to check for non-renewal. This is why I wasn't comfortable with just converting the file to PD-1978, as the Flickr uploader may have cropped it. We hope (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You may also find it useful to read User:Quadell/copyright. ww2censor (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

December Metrics and Activities Meeting
Thanks for your interest in the Wikipedia Education Program's Metrics and Activities Meeting. We're attempting to schedule the next meeting, and we'd like to get your input on days and times that you'd be available. If you're interested in joining us, please fill out this Doodle. We look forward to talking with you then. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Copypasta

 * You have replies on AN
 * Next time, please don't use AN for that type of question; you didn't need an administrator; the help desk would have been more appropriate
 * The floating boxes in the bottom corners of this page do not work, on my browser at least - because the text does not fit within them.  Chzz  ► 19:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please join me..
in helping to eat the pie! Many thanks! We hope (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Gas explosion
Thanks Piotrus, I have a lot more articles in mind. If only I had more time... Tymek (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Teutonic order charge.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Teutonic order charge.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Anders Army
Please come back :)  // Halibutt
 * Ok, but please link the target (so I can 1-click come back) and sign with dates (so my auto archiver will work on your post(s) :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Family Honor
I've left a message on the GA reviewer's talk page as you suggested. I also responded and made some comments. Feel free to look and comment. I'll do my best to try fixing things over the weekend. Thanks. Rojast07 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Kołłątaj review
Please let me know if I did something wrong with the Hugo Kołłątaj B-class review. Orczar (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Joint custody (United States) needs a kick in the pants
Piotrus, is there anything you can do with the students involved with editing this article? The nomination will likely be failed soon if nothing more happen to improve it. Cheers,AstroCog (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was/am a bit confused. I addressed every point within the section that had issues with it. No comments were made that the changes had any issues, so I assumed we were waiting on further review. If there are any parts that have issues I am not sure what they are, as I just double checked to ensure that I had made a comment on every single one of them. The citation issue, the validation of one of the authors issue, the adverb issue, etc. all were addressed and subsequently commented on so to make sure that people knew they had been addressed. --Kgw2 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a closer look again. I may have missed recent improvements. AstroCog (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces
Would you be able to consider the recent series of edits to this article regarding pictures and either make edits or comment on talkpages as appropriate? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bar Confederation
Can it really be described as part of the Russo-Turkish War? Just because the two conflicts occurred concurrently does not really make one part of the other. The Ottomans and the RT War is mentioned only very briefly in the article as part of the general background. I removed that part from the infobox.  Volunteer Marek  16:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Radzymin 1920
Re: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Radzymin (1920). Do you know if there's any timetable for this assessment? It's been there for ages now, nothing new appeared, all issues solved, no further input from anyone. Any ideas whom to poke?  // Halibutt 01:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to improve that article, take a look at Fifelfoo's comments here. Seems like separating bibliography from in-line citations is a good practice. Not obligatory, but it makes the article more tidy. Also, the Notes section should go above the See also. Other formatting suggestions could also apply to your article I believe. Applying those changes is a pain in the ass though.  // Halibutt 02:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Joint Custody
Just thought I would have to say WOOHOO haha. --Kgw2 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed image on Poland Land Forces page
Hello, I'd like to address the issue of the disputed photo (Polish Army Soldiers 1951.jpg) on the Poland Land Forces page... I do have an issue with the image, and how Buckshot06 and W. B. Wilson are editing the content.

First, I'd like to state that the image is a poor choice for the page. We are all media savvy, and any newspaper or magazine editor will tell you that there is such a thing as a "bad" picture, which can be used to ridicule a subject. The image in question is just such a picture. There were many images on Wikipedia that were taken down because they were deemed to look too much like "propaganda", or an "advertisement"... So, surely there has to be an opposite of that, and the image in question portrays Poland's military in a less then flattering way. All, you have to do is look at other military pages such as that of United States Army, Canadian Army or even the Israel Defense Forces to see that all the pictures used are neutral, they do not portray the respective armed forces in a superhuman way, but at the same time they do not demean or humiliate the subject. Anyone can upload a lousy picture, add it to a page and start claiming that it is highly relevant to the text. Also, one of your first comments about the (Polish Army Soldiers 1951.jpg) image was "that the soldiers are grinning somewhat... stupidly" so, I am not the only person to see this photo in a negative light.

Another issue is that the photo lacks depth... it is not an image of a historic event, depicting Polish soldiers. It is a "static pose" that should be avoided, since they do not really go with the actual text of the article. Most pictures will have a short description of events depicted, and its significance. But, this image can only say "Polish troops, 1951"... that's it. So, why is this picture so important to Buckshot06 and W. B. Wilson, who are screaming censorship, when I clearly noted on numerous occasions that the picture is a poor choice, and should be replaced, and not because of some political agenda!

Finally, I am very troubled by how Buckshot06 and W. B. Wilson are conducting themselves... after the image in question was not chosen to replace the Eisenhower/Spychalski photo, because of the objections listed above, Buckshot06 went on the Polish Land Forces page, and added the questionable image to that article instead. If you claim to be serious about the legitimacy of Wikipedia, and it's neutral and honest approach, why would you do something like that? In the end, I would like to remove that image from the Land Forces page.--76.118.227.161 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. Suggest an alternative. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note the alternatives to be included on the page: (File:Marking Polish-German Border in 1945.jpg) and (Знак Варшавский договор.jpg) the two images are very neutral, and are connected to the text. Please see the new edit for approval: Polish Land Forces --76.118.227.161 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Theory of historical trajectory, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Capital and State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Polish First Army (1920) and (1944-1945)
I see you've commented on the disambiguation page of the above articles. It's taken me a while to think about it, the best way would have a vote on if the two articles can be easily merged together without any information lost. Of course if they are both merged then both article names would have to change (possibly). Adamdaley (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

College and university dating has passed GAN
Title says it all. Could you please notify the group of what a great job they did? Also, would be kind enough to ping me the next time a set of assignments hit the board? Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kazimierz Karwowski
Hello! Your submission of Kazimierz Karwowski 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! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Group work review
Could I stop by your office when you have a chance today? I need to leave early because my brother needs a ride at 4 o'clock, so I was wondering if I could fill out the group work survey before then. Thanks!!!!! BonnieNoel (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry but I have to leave now he's stranded at the science center! Is it possible for you to email me the questions? It's bgn3@pitt.edu thank you! BonnieNoel (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Proletarian poetry
Could you please stop by the Proletarian poetry talk page and let the students know if you think their fixes to the legacy section are sufficient. Cloveapple (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Family in advertising
Here is a note reminding you of our unsuccessful attempts to find sources on family in advertising with a global view. Thanks for your help.

Alimosser61 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Single Parent - single parent adoption
I have done what (in my opinion) my Reviewer has asked. He has made suggestions that are more criticisms which I believe are untrue, at least for my section. I have fixed what I believe needed to be fixed but the rest of his comments I found to be just plain wrong. In the end I am happy with my article however a second opinion would be nice.

Also you told me to mention the references to you, some of mine were red and you said you would fix them. Stboser (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

single parent
I discussed with you in class about my section on divorce and was hoping that you could give me some feedback. Thank you! Nll27 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to fix the part about it not being a how to.. I entirely deleted what I previously had and wrote a whole new section. But, I will go through again and try to make some changes, and also I will add the blue links in. Thank you! Nll27 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Also, I was wondering if you had any suggestions about rewording the last paragraph. I'm sort of having a hard time because our reviewer told me to put a part in about tips from experts, and I don't know how to make it not sound like tips without changing the information. Nll27 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Polish Armed Forces in the East (1914–1920)
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Image
Hello,

This image is for the wikipedia page Family Honor. It's an image that relates to the death of a woman mentioned in our article whose story is an example of an honor killing. Honor killings relate to family honor because they are a method of upholding a family's honor within certain cultures. The picture is specifically a picture of the woman who is mentioned within the article. It's a picture of women carrying out her casket from her funeral. Here's the link: http://archive.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=woman-claimed-last-victim-of-honor-killing-2011-03-02 Rojast07 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have uploaded the image. The image can be found here. I have added the image to the article at the relevant section. Piotr, I'm not sure if the image description and rationale I used is right or not. Please take a look at it at the image page. Thanks. Bejinhan   talks   07:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked and I couldn't see how this fails F7. As for NFCC#8, the admin is right. The file is not so important and significant that the article can't do without it. Rojast07, can you find other pictures already in Wikimedia Commons that relates to any topic in Family honor? This picture from Hurriyet Daily News cannot be used. Bejinhan   talks   01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The students tried and failed to find other relevant images, and so do I. I do not believe NFCC8 is relevant here - honor killing article is missing an image entirely, and this one would be filling a void there, too. If you disagree, please show us a free honor killing related image we can use instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 05:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I uploaded the image and gave a couple of rationales as to why it should be kept. It is just unfortunate that the admin sees otherwise. The Family honor article is not solely about honor killings and I think I can see why the admin deleted the image. If the article had been all about Hatice Firat, the image wouldn't have been deleted. The article doesn't hinge solely on Hatice Firat and hence, the image deletion because Hatice Firat isn't the main or significant topic of the article. This is the best I can do regarding this image. I am not used to uploading fair use images. I'm sorry I can't be of more help here. Maybe the admin who deleted the image can give a better and fairer understanding. Bejinhan   talks   06:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stanisław Dunin-Karwicki
Hello! Your submission of Stanisław Dunin-Karwicki 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! Yoninah (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pilsudski in Kostiuchnówka's trenches.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Pilsudski in Kostiuchnówka's trenches.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Teutonic order charge.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Teutonic order charge.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Rhodos668.JPG
Hello Piotrus I requested a rotation of this image which showed correctly at full resolution but not as a thumbnail. I hope this works. The pic is an excellent one of the entrance to the old Muslim Library which I wish to use here .Cheers Robert Notafly (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC) See also I have not requested a rotation of this image.Do you wish me to? Notafly (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

34th Tank Division
Would you like to review my Gtranslated and cleaned up version of the Polish tank brigade article? Buckshot06 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Katowice Mig 21
Hello Piotrus!

My name is Peter Horvath, I am a plastic model maker from Hungary. I would like to prepare the Mig 21 which in the Katowice airportin 1/48 scale. I like your photos about then. Have you more pics about this airplane, becouse I need for the painting job. If you can help to me, and you have more picture please send me an email. Thank you!

Peter for Hungary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.116.8 (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Piotrus!

My name is Peter Horvath, I am a plastic model maker from Hungary. I would like to prepare the Mig 21 which in the Katowice airportin 1/48 scale. I like your photos about then. Have you more pics about this airplane, becouse I need for the painting job. If you can help to me, and you have more picture please send me an email. Thank you!

rustypepe@gmail.com

Peter from Hungary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustypepe (talk • contribs) 07:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wroniec (book)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Kazimierz Karwowski
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Agreed! Probably the best thing we can do is transwiki articles and try to address systematc bias. Will transwiki some Polish related articles today.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with article
I'm going to be out of commission for a little bit so I was wondering if you could help with finishing up some work on the new article on Andrzej Bogucki, particularly adding inline citations in, and once it's ready nominating it for DYK (it was created by User:Nienk)? Since it's the holidays, I understand if you're busy as well though.  Volunteer Marek  18:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Łódź insurrection (1905) ACR
G'day, Piotrus, I'm not sure if you've seen my comments at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Łódź insurrection (1905). Are you able to respond to these? As the review has been open longer than 28 days, it will possibly be closed soon by one of the co-ords; it would be a shame for it to stall at this late date. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Stanisław Dunin-Karwicki
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Szczytt family
Hello, may I remove notability template from this article? Kmicic (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I try convice you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. If you would be still not convice, I will shared my explenation. Kmicic (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would like, I'll sent you via e-mail fotos of chapter about Hugo Kołłątaj from Polski Słownik Biograficzny. Kmicic (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate link tool
G'day Piotrus, sorry I missed your comment about this in the ACR. Anyway, the duplicate link tool can be found here: User:Ucucha/duplinks. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Pilsudski in Kostiuchnówka's trenches.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Pilsudski in Kostiuchnówka's trenches.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

People's Army of Poland
Thanks for your mssage Piotrus. The discussion preceding the merge was at User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_17, and W.B. Wilson's talkpage at East European Armies. The aim was to have a single 'Military of X' whatever country main historical page as is WP:MILHIST practice. Hope this message satifies your immediate need for information; I'll respond in a fuller fashion later. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was just about to suggest a discussion. However, given that the two identified pages were regarding Poland and Yugoslavia, I was going to suggest the WT:MILHIST page. You seemed a bit dissatisfied with my last effort to phrase things in a neutral way - would you like to post the message? Cheers and Merry Christmas, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear what you say, and when there is a level of interest you are right. Usually for these pages there isn't a scrap worth of interest at all; I find pages that haven't been edited, except for bots, for over two years. I'll post the message at Milhist and Poland. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone through my edits for the last month or so, and the only Poland-related merge was the I Corps in the West one which was throughly discussed. By the way, if I had not known of your record, my initial response to your message would have been rather hostile: you came across as aggressive, demanding, and verging on WP:OWN. It might be better to try and word things in a less forthright manner, because I certainly almost took offense. Cheers, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike that: I've reread it and it's not justified. Comes maybe of reading most messages in the tiny 'Recent changes' viewbox. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not in New Zealand. I'm much closer to you (assuming you're in Poland) than usual; southcentral Europe. But no, cannot view anything of the book. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I will remove the unsourced units table from the PPA article. There's another article, Polish People's Army order of battle which is referenced and does the job better - I'll install a link. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rapid automatized naming/GA1
Just how is one supposedto identify a newcomer ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * People's Army of Poland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Polish Legions


 * Stefan Garwatowski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Battle of Warsaw

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

GA class reviews
Hey. Just wondering when the grades would be due for the class I'm doing the GA reviews on. I've been absolutely swamped the past couple weeks and want to make sure I get all the prose issues up before time runs out, which it might on my end. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. Both are GA to my satisfaction that I've reviewed; just letting you know since I may not be able to log on until tomorrow to promote them, so you can count them as GAs. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Polish Underground State A class review
Hi Piotrus, I'm afraid that I've just closed the A class review of Polish Underground State as being unsuccessful. Thanks for nominating this article. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Tomasz Szadek
Hi Piotrus -- following on our earlier conversation -- I'm going to fill in a few more redlinks. Could you do me a favor, and look at the last sentence of the first section of this article on the Polish wiki: "W ostatnich latach jego życia zgromadzenie wikariuszy katedralnych wytoczyło mu dochodzenia z powodu niedbałego wypełniania obowiązków administracyjnych i jakoby nieobyczajnego życia." It's too 'interesting' to skip, and there's nothing in my huge New Grove, nor in my Reese Music of the Renaissance (which otherwise covers this guy pretty well) that mentions this -- could you translate it for me? Thank you kindly! Antandrus (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! It's cited to Słownik muzyków dawnej Polski, A. Chybiński, Kraków 1948/49, but I don't have access to that book.  After having written a couple hundred biographies of Renaissance composers elsewhere in Europe I can say that such events were not at all uncommon.  Sometimes they are rather colorful.  One French composer (Gilles Joye) even named a mass after his favorite prostitute.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Orleta1939.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Orleta1939.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 or which could be adequately covered with text alone. 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. Melesse (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Theory of historical trajectory
Hello! Your submission of Theory of historical trajectory 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! Marrante (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My GA Review
Hi Piotr, I have been doing everything that my reviewer has asked me to do, but yet he hasn't closed the review. I was wondering if you could tell me if there is a more efficient way of contacting him besides his talk page and the discussion page of my article. I would have made my last change sooner yesterday if I had not been on a six hour car ride home. I'm honestly quite frustrated with the fact that he waited until the last minute to start giving feedback on my article and now I find myself really stressed about it not receiving the GA status. Is there anything more that I can do other than what I have been doing?Marikathrynarnold (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia blog
I'm not sure if you've seen today's Wikimedia blog post. It's about somebody you know.

Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Theory of historical trajectory
Orlady (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC) 16:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA
Hi Piotr, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there,  Sloggerbum  ( talk ) 23:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Anglo-Prussian alliance (1788) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Charles Whitworth


 * Public Domain Day (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Free culture


 * Triple Alliance (1788) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Charles Fox

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash; Commander (Ping me) 05:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't deserve this!
I have seen your name on the SOPA talk. I am also against SOPA. I also happen to be a citizen of an Eastern European country, Romania, living in Romania. I am using WIkipedia daily - I am an avid Encyclopaedia reader, and sometimes I also edit. I have noticed that you support and encourage WF to punish me, and others like me around the world, basically severely disturbing our lives by having WP blocked entirely, for something that politicians in a foreing country (USA) did and from which corporatocrats there will profit. I have to be frank here. If this thing happens, it will wreck my life pretty seriously and I am rather sure I did nothing at all to deserve having something like this being done to me. Please tell is there something practical that I can do to avoid this terrible thing that is about to happend to me (WF not allowing me to read it's previously "free" articles)? I mean I know about the right to close WP and the right to fork and that WF doesn't owe anyone anything, but I would have hoped us readers amongst ourselves and the WF have become firends and friends don't do this to one another. SOFT blanks I understand, even a 2-day complete block just for the US I understand, but what could I possibly do to avoid this being done to me, on the suggestion of you and others? I am not represented by anyone in the US congress... They can ban me, do anything they like but I am going to pester you with this question till I get an answer: what did I do to deserve this being done to me and what can I do to stop it (realistically)? Or are people like you just sadistic to defenseles fellow users? 79.112.59.92 (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Romanian Wikipedia will be unaffected, I don't see a problem. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Triple Alliance (1788)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cezary Baryka
Hi. Well its the same old "principles" being more important than content. I believe his slate should be wiped clean and allowed to continue using that account and doing what he is doing. We can't afford to block good faith editors regardless of their past. I've asked Amalthea, if he doesn't unblock him you and I and anybody else who supports him should request a unblock formally.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know. I've redirected our posts to User:Xeno as Amalthea seems to be out of town. I will be creating a few Polish related articles later BTW. Feel free to give me some red link requests whenever you want!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow just noticed we don't even have building and structure categories for each region of Poland!! Must sort that..♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know
FYI. The above listed discussion regards your DYK nomination for Public Domain Day. While I do not believe your presence is currently required at the discussion, your presence could assist with some of the concerns raised. --Allen3 talk 13:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Defilada
The DYK project (nominate) 13:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Bautzen (1945) A class review
Hello Piotrus, I'm afraid that I've just closed the A class review of this article as not being successful as it did not attract the necessary level of support. Thank you for nominating it, and please feel free to re-nominate the article in the future if you believe that the A class criteria are met. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Public Domain Day
The DYK project (nominate) 14:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Bloody Wednesday (Poland), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bund (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

T:TDYK
I will nominate Archduchess Sophie of Austria and Ladislaus of Anjou. Is that okay, to nominate two at once? --<b style="background:#571B7e; padding:2px; color:white;">Alexcoldcasefan</b> (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry about that :D --<b style="background:#571B7e; padding:2px; color:white;">Alexcoldcasefan</b> (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)
Hello there. Sadly, the article on the Battle of Radzymin failed at A-class assessment due to procedural reasons. All the issues were fixed but only two people actually voted for it. Since you helped to improve the article in the past, could I interest you in the new assessment? Thanks for any help.  // Halibutt 12:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Radzymin (1920) ✅ :)  // Halibutt 01:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Query...
On a DYK you noted "missing wikiproject assessment template on talk, please add". I am not sure what this is. Pointers? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a tool for this you might recommend? I'm 100% manual so far. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think in this case you were referring to a DYK-specitfic tag. Can you point me to an example of that? I'll C-n-P it from there. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, ok I get it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Kołłątaj
Hello, could you send me your e-mail? I've got photos from PSB. My e-mail is kmicic.wiki (at) wp.pl. Kmicic (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Russo-Prussian alliance
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Collegium Nobilium (Olomouc)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Collegium Nobilium (Olomouc), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Collegium Nobilium. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Foma Osipovitch Bogdanovitch-Dvorzhetskij
Hi this name isn't correct can you move it to the appropriate name?♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Scipione Piattoli
I just noticed his page. Interesting guy! Among the many changes you made on Jan. 3, you added this sentence: During that time he developed extensive contacts at various European courts in Courland (Karlsbad), Austria (Vienna), Italy (Turin) and France (Paris). The mention of Karlsbad as the location of the Courland court seems to be incorrect, since Courland is located in what is now Latvia and its capital in those days was Jelgava, while Karlsbad is the German name for a town in the Czech Republic which is now known as Karlovy Vary. Or am I missing something? Please double-check. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Konrad Prószyński
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tibet Improvement Party, Pandatsang Rapga
I've changed the hook a bit. Let me know if it is satisfactory or not. Regards, --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 05:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:atmosphere
Unfortunately your comment confirms that the current atmosphere is not a result of my edits but of the recent block of one of Poeticbent’s socks. Unfortunately it confirms that the latest activity of VM, MMA and Vecrumba (the latest) might be seen as an attempt to punish the one who has done something "evil" to a buddy. Should I mention that all of you were active members of the EEML and once banned for tagteaming, canvassing and battleground mentality?

If Poeticbent believes he should be allowed to edit again he should ask an Admin. What he shouldn’t do is to ignore the block and create large sockfarms. This is rather a basic rule and I’m sure you, as a former Admin, know it.

My personal opinion on Poeticbent’s contributions and the justification of his block is completely irrelevant. But you shouldn’t expect a recommendation as far as I’m concerned. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a threat? I don't think it's me who is currently not editing "collaboratively". HerkusMonte (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh come off of it. As you say, your extremely bad faith towards a constructive user who has been subject of vicious off-wiki harassment is one thing, your recent spate of reverts - let's remember that you're the one who followed me across half a dozen articles and reverted without explanation - and POV edits are another. The only thing these two things have in common is that neither of these things casts you in particularly good light. Volunteer Marek 13:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Which actions exactly do you "perceive as battle-minded". My content-edits or the fact that I unveiled Poeticbent's socks?
 * @VM. I did not follow you, I restored sourced content you removed without a discussion from pages I or Skäpperöd (who has unfortunately left the project) had edited before. Also to remove my attempt to cooldown the atmosphere from your talkpage is some kind of an answer too, just it doesn't "cast you in a particularly good light".
 * @Piotrus: To signalize that the current harassment will continue until I write a commendation in regard of Poeticbent is hardly a friendly way to mediate. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't "unveil" any socks. What you did, is take part in the on-wiki harassment of a user who tried to have some anonymity after being viciously harassed off-wiki. Since you appear to consider this as some kind of accomplishment to be proud of, you might want to inquire somewhere if they give barnstars for that kind of thing. Volunteer Marek 15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Have you considered revisiting Talk:Isaac and Miria/GA1. It has been about 11 days since the review. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 23:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bloody Wednesday (Poland)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Constitution of May 3, 1791 and History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1764–1795)
I'll work with both articles once I get to that point. Orczar (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Scipione Piattoli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Karlsbad, Confederacy and Burghers


 * Constitution of May 3, 1791 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to First Partition


 * Polish–Prussian alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to First Partition


 * Roman Ignacy Potocki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Stanisław Lubomirski

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I also questioned the Karlsbad link above. It was just plain wrong, since Karlsbad and Courland have no connection with each other. DPL bot is performing a useful service if he catches stuff like that! DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Roads as structures
It's a good question, and one I've never really figured out. But, comes under  which is in  (a classification which is copied in the PL category tree, which with the help of Cat Scan is why they appeared in my list). Road sure aren't buildings but I can see them being called structures, yes. (Similar arguments for reservoirs, locks etc). SeveroTC 14:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea to create a Roads by voivodeship tree - although I plan to next create a sports venues by voivodeship tree. I think we're nearly there on the buildings and structures by voivodeship/city - although still a few city counties without any b & s articles :/ SeveroTC 14:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Honorverse templates
Category:Honorverse templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Polish Constitution article
You appear to have overlooked my review - if you could see to the corrections that would be useful, otherwise I'll fail the article and you can see to them at leisure before renominating. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Siedlce pogrom
Thanks for your article Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

January meeting
The hunt for the best time for our January edition of the Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting is underway. If you're interested in joining us, please fill out your availability on this Doodle by Monday, January 16, so we can schedule the meeting. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Scipione Piattoli
Hi. Can you propose an alt hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Scipione Piattoli? :) --LauraHale (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Clouds above Poland
Hi Prokonsul,

Hope you don't mind me sending you a message on here, I couldn't find a way of contacting you direct from your Wikipedia user page.

I work as a freelance video/AV editor and I am interested in using your "Clouds above Poland" image in a small project for a local company. I am being paid for the work so would be happy to pay you an amount to use the image, subject to my client's approval-I could afford €40 from my budget. I hope this would be agreeable to you, I can provide more details as to my intended usage if you wish.

Thanks,

Charlie Goodliffe charlie@thebrownroom.co.uk 90.220.67.205 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Charles. You can always use WP:EMAIL, but talk page is fine, too. You can use my image freely within the applicable license, see the image page and Reusing Wikipedia content. Please let me know if you have any questions, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Armia Ludowa
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Polish–Prussian alliance
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Freemasons
In reply to your comment at User talk:Black Falcon:

I appreciate your notification; I was returning from a wiki-break at the time and, therefore, did not notice your post until the DRV had closed. For reference, the list of the category's original contents is available here. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

"What Work Is"
Hello, First of all, thank you for reviewing the What Work Is page. I will try to fix everything on it to make it up to snuff. I was part of the class project that was working on the page and the class has ended. But i care about the page and want it to work. So i will be trying to fix it up. I don't want to waste anymore of your time (i apologize for no one responding within the quite respectable amount of time that was given) so who would be a good person i could contact about certain aspects of editing? The plagarism parts confuse me but i will go back and look at the talk pages to see what the deal is. Thank you very much.

Jason Slavin

Piotrus, I have done a good amount of work. A great deal was word for word plagiarized than i had thought. I eliminated all of the plagiarism and fixed up the ferw references that were incomplete. Could you take a look at it and tell me what else may need to be done in order to nominate for GA statuse again? Thank you for your time!76.126.173.103 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Scipione Piattoli
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times
Did anybody tell you that one of your articles was mentioned in yesterday's New York Times? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
SarahStierch (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
Piotrus, you may want to look at Peer review/Pope John Paul II/archive3? -- Marek. 69  talk  02:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

POMOA DYK nom
Hi. I've reworded a new sentence to the POMOA article now. --Soman (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Biographies
Hello, I want to ask You for Your permission (or The Wikipedia permission) to paste informations about Polish composers from site www.pwm.com.pl. Do we have to sign an agreement or a licence? We have a lot of informations and we want to share it. PolishMusicLover1945 (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

January Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting
The January meeting has been scheduled. For instructions on joining and a time converter, see Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting. Hope you can join the meeting. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fix refs
Let me know how the tool is doing, I haven't heard anything from you in a while. ΔT The only constant 00:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ignacy Potocki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Republican


 * ZAiKS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Free license

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Research Newsletter
Hi Piotrus,

I know you have been well acquainted with academic research about Wikipedia for years. Any chance you could spend some time before tomorrow evening UTC to contribute something to the upcoming issue of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter? It just turns out that my co-editor Dario (WMF's research analyst) is unable to contribute this time due to travel and other obligations. I'm committed to getting this issue out as scheduled, but it might be a bare-boned version. Even a short summary (2-3 sentences) of a paper that interests you would be helpful. The draft page with a list of items that are intended be covered here and the coordination Etherpad (where one can sign up to cover a particular paper) is here. Thanks, and even if you can't find time on such short notice, your feedback and suggestions/contributions for future issues continue to be very welcome.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is great, thanks a lot already! More is welcome. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Abolition of serfdom in Poland
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012
<div class="hlist" 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
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Zgromadzenie Przyjaciół Konstytucji Rządowej
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Powitanie
Cześć! Dzięki za powitanie na enwiki – wreszcie się doczekałem ;) Pozdrawiam serdecznie, --Mikołka 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

re: Barnstar
Thanks so much! This totally made my day. - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Maps
I posted a couple of questions for you on the 'shop. Regards! -- Orionist  ★  talk  06:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!
Thanks for the Sociology Barnstar for my work on A Community of Witches! It's nice to feel appreciated. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC))

Communist Poland Copyright issue
There is a dispute regarding an image that was scanned from a old Polish magazine form the communist era. The person who uploaded the file claims that since it was a state owned publisher, the photograph can be copied due to an alleged public domain claim. I myself believe that even during communist era, publishers and photographers protected their work form being ripped-off, or missuses by other printing houses... and I doubt that there is no copyright protection whatsoever. Also, the image itself was scanned form "Radio i Telewizja" weekly magazine, so the image may not actually be of Polish solders, but of TV stand-ins, and since the person who uploaded the image did not provide additional information when asked... the status and subject matter of the picture is unclear. If you have any knowledge on this subject, your input would be much appreciated, at this point I'm trying to get other users involved, and resolve this issue. Discussion page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Polish_Army_Soldiers_1951.jpg --76.118.227.161 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear anon, this is something you may want to bring to WT:POLAND rather than my talk page. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 04:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Stanisław Staszic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slavic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Szymborska
Hi, Piotrus. Could you excerpt and translate the portion of the link your provided (which is in Polish, which unfortunately I do not speak, and it would be faster for you to do so, rather than for me to attempt Google Translate) which authoritatively states or confirms that Szymborska called for the death penalty for the priests in question. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying and updating. The prior editing made it seem like she was a fanged daemon seeking blood. Dziękuje. Quis separabit?  01:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

improving WP:MEDRS
Hi,

I would like to improve WP:MEDRS (medicine project), in particular with respect to its excessive weight given to secondary sources, which discourage contributors. I would like an experienced wikilawyer to monitor/assist the process: if I understood wp now, this became necessary. i can give more details. Are you interested? Mehmedmed (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmedmed (talk • contribs) 12:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

mentioning open research in WP policies.
i am trying to mention open research in WP policies What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No original research (by specifying that wikipedia is not an open research tool, despite its appearance) but other editors do not want to, and there is beginning of edit war.

I cannot manage it, but i still think that mentioning alternatives (open research websites) can provide an incentive to openness, if established wikipedians do not want people to leave wp for or websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmedmed (talk • contribs) 22:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Mehmedmed (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Maps
Hello Piotr! My previous message here seems to have slipped under your radar. So just to remind you, I finished your request at the Map Workshop but need you to answer a couple of questions before I upload the files. They are at WP:GL/M. Cheers! -- Orionist  ★  talk  16:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wagner article is in need of some help
We're in a bit of a pickle in the Wagner discussion page. The issues concerns Social class (sociology) and the phrase supposedly common Germanic past and has now been dismissed by some editors as inconsequential.

At the end of the Wagner discussion page (under Edit War solution topic) there issome suggested courses of action that I was requested to list,  from my point of view. Please help. Just take fast look. Thank you

In the introduction, removed as non consequential
 * In his own era he furthermore provided the newly emerged middle class with a medium to transfer its familial and political conflicts into a myth of supposedly common Germanic past.

In the Biography chapter removed as non consequential
 * Richard Wagner was born into a lower middle class family

User:Major Torp (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Student asking for help
Hi, I am a student working on the Thomas Green Clemson Wikipedia page. I had just recently made a rather large edit for the current size of the page and was wondering if you had any feedback for me that would make my page better. My user page is User:Chewey93 so please contact me if you have any tips. Thank you.

Why would you leave a terrible site like www.westerneurope.info in wikipedia.org/Western_Europe
Is the site yours? Don't worry I did the job for you and removed it.