User talk:Sylwia Ufnalska

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Drawno National Park, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Drawno National Park was changed by Sylwia Ufnalska (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2009-03-30T11:04:22+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Sylwia!! I presume it's you? Seems we have another hobby in common... ;) --Kotniski (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FROM SYLWIA: I don't know you, I'm afraid.
 * Are you sure? (It's not my real name...)--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FROM SYLWIA: How can I be sure if I don't know your real name?
 * Try translating it into English...--Kotniski (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FROM SYLWIA :))))) Funny that you've "met" me here by accident. I hope to see you soon. S.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Drawno National Park. Such edits constitute defacement and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Frehley Space Ace 11:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FROM SYLWIA: This is no vandalism, the page needs to be redirected because its name is wrong. The Drawa National Park is the official translation of this park in English!! If you don't believe me, see the Park's website!!
 * I'm sure she's right. Don't persecute new users just because they don't know our arcane procedures for doing page moves. (Sylwia, you're supposed to use the "move" button to rename articles - if you don't see it because you're too new, or if it doesn't work, then follow the instructions at WP:Requested moves.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FROM SYLWIA: Sorry, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.
 * No problem - another thing is that you don't have to write FROM XXX, you can use ~ to produce an automatic signature (or just click on the square above the edit box that looks like a signature - on my screen it's the 10th one along).--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Weichselian glaciation vs. Vistulian glaciation
Please do not change the name, while the Vistulian glaciation may be the "correct" name - Weichselian is the most common name. Wikipedia uses the name that is most common, and notes less common versions. If there is a change in the "popularity" of the names - then WP should reflect this - but that isn't yet. ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for the explanation Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Attje Museum Jokkmokk.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Attje Museum Jokkmokk.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles


The article EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unencyclopaedic

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --ZhongHan (Email) 11:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Józef Paczoski. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Józef Paczoski
Well, you've taken care of the orphan issue, that's good. The article however, only cites two references. Please add more references, or restore the refimprove tag. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Preferably"
Sylvia, please stop adding the word "preferably" to articles on Polish Voivodeships. It's POV and disruptive, and you're just making work for someone else to clean up the mess you made. Also, changing "c" to "ts" was wrong because it does not display properly. The reference you provided is immaterial, as it has no authority. If you're going to make changes of this nature, discuss them on talk pages first.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, if "c" displays as a square, the problem is that your computer does not have the proper IPA fonts installed. Install them and you'll see it displayed properly. See the article on IPA for details. It should display as "ts" with a little wavy line over it.


 * Second of all, it is VERY POV. That you and the source you found prefer "province" is immaterial, since neither of you have any authority. Fact is, there is no "prefered" translation. Consensus here on Wikipedia is to use "Voivodeship". I don't know what your bug is because we also give the "XXXX Province" form as well. How can you not be satisfied. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We're not responsible for what appears outside of Wikipedia. People use Wikipedia at their own risk. Whether or not it's "incomprehensible to most foreigners" is a rather poor argument; it's quickly explained what the term means (province). Authority on Wikipedia is established by reliable sources and consensus. Consensus here is solidly for "Voivodeship". The time to argue this would have been years ago. Now it's too late. I'm a tranlator, too (english native speaker, biology and medicine as well), and when I translate I use "Province of Lower Silesia" etc. However, here on Wikipedia, I have to go with decisions made long ago, and so "Lower Silesian Voivodeship" it has to be, regardless of how you or I feel about it. "Understandably" is just as bad as "preferably"; it's merely your personal opinion, and has no place on Wikipedia Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: Did you install the IPA fonts? Are the IPA characters now displaying properly for you?


 * No problem. It's just that this battle was fought years ago, and consensus was reached. It may not be to our liking, but we have to live with it for the sake of consistency throughout Wikipedia. And peace, as well. There's simply no use bickering over it now. It's water under the bridge, and there are bigger fish to fry. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the English Wikipedia. It's a pleasure to encounter someone who exercises common sense.
 * The only semi-rational argument that I have seen on the English Wikipedia for rendering "województwo" as "voivodship" or "voivodeship," with the "e" (as some of our "experts" insisted at the end), is that, until the final partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, "prowincyja" designated the Commonwealth's major regions—chiefly, Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
 * It seems to me, however, foolish to hold comprehensibility hostage to an idiosyncratic usage that has been dead for 216 years. In any case, the distinction can easily be maintained, by rendering the old "prowincyja" as "region"; thus, "Greater Poland Region," etc.
 * Perhaps reason will eventually prevail. Nihil novi (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Nihil novi! It's good to know that more people think like me. I wonder if we should make a scientific experiment to confirm that "Łódź province" is more understandable to foreigners than "Łódź voivod(e)ship" etc. and publish its results somewhere, to be able to add this statement to Wikipedia.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A few years ago, one of the English-Wikipedia proponents of rendering "województwo" as "province," stated that a major Polish government instrumentality used "province." Do you happen to know whether there is in fact an "official" Polish government rendering?  (Though, even if the entire Polish government were to unanimously declare that it should be "voivod(e)ship," I would still hold with "province.")
 * I'm not sure what would change the minds of the voivod(e)shipians. Decisions on Wikipedia tend to be made by majority vote.  The actual merits of arguments don't always count for much.
 * But I'm sure that a published paper such as you describe wouldn't hurt. If help were needed with its editing, please let me know.  (Do you mostly translate Polish-to-English, or English-to-Polish?  When I've translated, it's generally been into English, unless I had a native-speaker collaborator.)
 * Between the two of us, replacing "voivod(e)ship" with "province" is my last major ambition on Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I mostly translate Polish-to-English. Please see below for more comments.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Some references that support "province" for "województwo"
Perhaps we could accumulate more references like these:
 * New Provinces of Poland (1998):
 * Map of Poland
 * Nihil novi (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks, Nihil novi! I've noticed that both sources simply use the original, adjectival names of the provinces. This system makes back-translation easier, but it does not allow foreigners to realise that the names derive from the geographic names of regions or from names of cities. Nother disadvantage of the adjectival system is that Polish adjectival endings vary depending on gender of the following noun, so translated names of various provincial institutions in this system start with three different forms: masculine, femininine or neuter. That is why I prefer the "noun system": "Lower Silesia province", rather than "Dolnośląskie province". Moreover, the noun system mimics the rules of naming of administrative divisions in Anglophone countries. Dominus Vobisdu also prefers the noun system. Perhaps the best option would simply be to write "Lower Silesia Province (województwo dolnośląskie)" if space allows. In fact, this solution is actually preferred in the EASE Guidelines. What do you think? --Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the following comments in Voivodeship and Voivodeships of Poland:
 * The word "voivodeship" appears in some larger English dictionaries, such as the OED and Webster's Third New International Dictionary, but it is not in common usage. Thus, to facilitate understanding outside Poland, the word "province" is a recommended translation.

--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am pleasantly astonished at the agreement of our views. I, too, use the noun forms; as you say, that is what the English language does.
 * Questions will arise about province names that derive from the names of historic regions. I will venture some suggestions.  I am open to negotiation.
 * Greater Poland Province (województwo wielkopolskie)
 * Kujawy-Pomerania Province (województwo kujawsko-pomorskie)
 * Lesser Poland Province (województwo małopolskie)
 * Łódź Province (województwo łódzkie)
 * Lower Silesia Province (województwo dolnośląskie)
 * Lublin Province (województwo lubelskie)
 * Lubusz Province (województwo lubuskie)
 * Mazowsze Province (województwo mazowieckie)
 * Opole Province (województwo opolskie)
 * Podlasie Province (województwo podlaskie)
 * Pomerania Province (województwo pomorskie)
 * Silesia Province (województwo śląskie)
 * Subcarpathia Province (województwo podkarpackie)
 * Holy Cross Province (województwo świętokrzyskie)
 * Warmia-Mazury Province (województwo warmińsko-mazurskie)
 * West Pomerania Province (województwo zachodniopomorskie)
 * Nihil novi (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the version recommended by A. Belczyk (see here), based on English travel guides (Lonely Planet and Rough Guide). I'm from Wielkopolska and I particularly dislike its awkward translation into Great Poland (literally WIelka Polska) or Greater Poland (literally Większa Polska), both of which are nonsense. Like Belczyk, I also think that Lubuskie and Świętokrzyskie should be left as adjectival forms, as the nouns are hardly ever used in Polish (Lubusz is in Germany, and nobody knows that the name of Góry Świętkorzyskie derives from some relics on Łysa Góra - I've got to know about it only recently, from Wikipedia).--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can go along with that, with two provisos: drop "the," and capitalize "Province."
 * Now, how and when do we implement the changes? Nihil novi (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering but I needed to think it over. We cannot force any renaming of articles - the changes would most probably be reverted anyway. Moreover, renaming requires changing of "voivodeship" into "province" everywhere in Wikipedia - which would be extremely time-consuming (but perhaps could be made by a bot designed specifically for this purpose - I could ask my friend,Kotniski, how such a bot could be made). We need to try to convince others that these changes would be beneficial. I've just added references to Belczyk once again to all articles about the present provinces of Poland. This article is particularly important, as it justifies why the changes are needed. Next, we can initiate a well-founded discussion of this problem on Manual of Style (Poland-related articles), which seems most suitable for this purpose. What do you think?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A discussion at "Manual of Style (Poland-related articles)" is a good idea, together with a notice about the discussion, placed at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland".
 * But first it is important to marshall all conceivable arguments (I think we've actually covered most of them on our talk pages) and, if possible, overwhelming authorities, as Wikipedia avowedly runs on authorities.
 * Authority is often interpreted instrumentally as statistical prevalence. For that purpose, resort is often made to Google searches.
 * While English-language authorities here trump Polish-language ones, it would nevertheless be helpful to cite Polish agencies, official or otherwise, that render "województwo" as "province".
 * At some point, appeal may have to be made to unbiased administrators or mediators, since Wikipedia discussions sometimes degenerate into brawls in which prolixity, repetitiveness, vituperation, name-calling and demagogy predominate over reasoned argument. Nihil novi (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all your suggestions. The frequency of translations of "woj. wielkopolskie" in Google seems to favour my version:
 * Greater Poland Voivodeship 155
 * Greater Poland Province 131
 * Wielkopolskie Province ok. 400
 * Wielkopolska Province ok. 660

Some major official sites using Wielkopolska Province:
 * [www.wielkopolska.policja.gov.pl]
 * [en.umww.pl]

However, the official site of the Provincial Office uses the term "Wielkopolska Voivodship Office" (note the lack of "e" in "Voivodship"). This spelling variation is an additional disadvantage of such a translation. Could you look for other examples confirming our preferences? And do you know any unbiased administrators?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder where you found the above numbers? When I used Google, I got values in the thousands and millions.  When I used Google Books, I got:
 * Greater Poland Province: 59,700
 * Greater Poland Voivodeship: 1,100
 * Wielkopolskie Province: 283
 * Wielkopolska Province: 189.
 * There are, however, some problems with Google searches. The numbers generated can include many reflections of "mirrors", e.g., of Wikipedia articles, with their particular biases.  Also, a word may be used in more than one sense — e.g., "Wielkopolska" may, in English, be either a region or a province.
 * I'm not very good at Google searches. Maybe someone else can help.
 * As to administrators, I've encountered a number of strikingly sensible ones. But you never know...  Nihil novi (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"strikingly sensible ones" :-)))

I've noticed that Google estimates are often greatly exagerated at the beginning, so I set the search display at 100 instead of 10 at a time (this is possible in the Polish version http://www.google.pl, but I can't find this option in the English version). Thanks to this, I can see at the bottom line of the page (under Gooooooogle) how many pages of results are ready for display. When I click the last page number, the true number of search results is shown. I'm not sure if this description is clear enough.

In the meantime, I got in touch with Arkadiusz Belczyk. He wished us good luck in our "crusade" and suggested me to emphasize that "province" is the translation recommended by all the three major Polish-English dictionaries (Fisiak, PWN-Oxford, Kościuszkowski), as well as by the influencial newspaper The Warsaw Voice.

By the way, I've realised that simultaneously we could discuss the translation of powiat and gmina. I think that county and commune" are the best options, but Belczyk suggests that "county" is "extremely Anglosaxon", so district" is a better translation of "powiat" (recommended in the past by Stanisławski's dictionary). However, "district" is now ambiguous, as the PWN-Oxford dictionary recommends it as the translation of "gmina"!!! So I think that the sequence: province-county-commune should be recommended in Wikipedia. What do you think?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. In general, if a satisfactory English equivalent exists for a generic Polish term, the English equivalent should be used.  Hence I favor "province," "county," and "commune."  I appreciate Mr. Belczyk's feeling about "county," but that word seems to be the predominant English equivalent; while the applications of "district" are too multifarious—"Lake District," "District of Columbia," "northern Warsaw's Żoliborz district."  Nihil novi (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Powiat" is already rendered as "county" on the English Wikipedia—e.g., "Poznań County." Nihil novi (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, this is an important argument, too. So we're now nearly ready to start the discussion. I only need to ask Kotniski now if the bot could be designed easily - as this should be clear--(Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, I suppose such a bot could be designed, if there were a strong need for it, at least for some of the more regular occurences of the word "voivodeship" (e.g. in article titles and infoboxes - doing substitutions in text is likely to run into problems, since the bot won't be able to check whether what it's writing makes sense). I don't really have a problem with "voivodeship" (I wouldn't use it in everyday translation, but in a encyclopedia, particularly a hyperlinked one, it seems quite appropriate), though I wouldn't object to using "province" either - though not in the historical context where prowincje existed. I must say I don't like "commune" for "gmina", though - firstly it isn't much better known (in that meaning) among English speakers than "gmina"; and secondly, if it is known, then it's probably in the French context - and French communes (at least in rural areas) are not much like our gminas, being much smaller, more like a sołectwo, so it really isn't a good equivalent. (I note PWN-Oxford doesn't give "commune" as a translation for gmina - rightly in my view. Incidentally it does give "voivodeship" as an alternative to "province" for województwo, and doesn't offer any equivalent at all for powiat, though I'm quite happy with the status quo of "county" for that one.) Oh, another thing about "gmina" - any attempt to translate it is going to run into problems when we get cases like Gmina Augustów, where any modification of the name is going to cause potential ambiguity with the gmina of Augustów.--Kotniski (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comments. It is noteworthy that the term "commune" is used for the smallest administrative units not only in France, but also in Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland. What problem with Gmina Augustów do you mean?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Tomorrow morning I'm leaving for two days, so I'll be able to answer after my return, I think--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean that if you try to translate "Gmina Augustów" into anything but those exact words by which it is known in Polish, to something like "Augustów Commune" or "Augustów District" or "Augustów Municipality", it isn't clear, even to someone who knows about the two entities, which one you mean (well, with "District" there's more of an ambiguity with the powiat than with the town).--Kotniski (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd rather leave "Gmina" the way it is, it's going to get confusing if you try and use the terminology in Poland. Plus the translation is inconsistent, some sources translate "Gmina" into "community". I'd rather also not convert to "Province". But that's my 2 cents. All I know is that there is a whole pile of articles that need to be translated (Road network, River Network, Canal network, Rail Network, Geographical Landforms/Regions, etc.). Ajh1492 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But why?? To avoid confusion among Poles, who are used to blah-blah translation? Translations are intended for foreigners, not Poles!! That is why they need to be understandable to foreigners.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't remember seeing a lot of signs in Poland saying "Commune xxx" vs "Gmina xxx". So by your argument it should be Peking instead of Bejing? Or are "foreigners" to dim-witted to understand Voivodeships and Gminas? Ajh1492 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any signs saying "hrabstwo" in England, either. Does it mean that Polish people should use the term "county" in Polish texts? And if a Pole didn't know the meaning of "county", would you call him or her dim-witted for this reason?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I really would rather use, in English, the one expression "province" instead of "wilaya," "marz," "voblast," "khaet," "sheng," "eparchia," "ostan," "khoueng," "faritany," "aimag," "tinh"—or "województwo" (aka "voivod(e)ship"). And since the other terms are in fact translated into English as "province," then why should "województwo" not be also? Nihil novi (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The words voivode and voivodeship really exist in the English language and they have quite a long tradition. In fact, the word voivode (meaning: a local governor or ruler in various parts of central and eastern Europe) was first recorded in English in the late 16th century, as The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary confirms. Unfortunately, the dictionary does not give any information about when the word voivodeship first appeared in English, but I presume it was in the interwar period when Poland regained its independence after WW1. On the other hand, the word voivode may be incomprehensible for most people, which is why I prefer province. Like Sylwia, I'm a professional translator and I always use province in my translations. Andrzej Matras. 79.184.102.187 (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that makes at least four Polish-to-English translators who hold the same view. I think that anyone who has seriously thought about the matter is likely to have come to the same conclusion.  And for what it's worth, on the same grounds I would translate "wojewoda" as "governor." Nihil novi (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether it is necessary to construct a "province bot" before advancing a proposal to substitute "province" for "voivodeship." If the principal articles are renamed, references to "voivodeships" will automatically be routed to the new "province" titles. Further title moves can be made later, gradually. Nihil novi (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right, we don't need to construct the bot now. Unfortunately I'll be extremely busy until mid-April, so if you can, please start the discussion yourself in the "Manual of Style (Poland-related articles)". Sorry that I will not be able to help you much in this period. All best wishes--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No hurry.  I'll be pretty busy too in this period. Nihil novi (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're in the same boat. I have some urgent translating to do, too, and likewise am serious about our mutual project.  We must work by priorities, and this project will still be there in a couple of months.  Additionally, it gives us more time to prepare thoroughly.  Thanks for getting in touch; it's always good to hear from you.  Nihil novi (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you.

From a cursory reading, the EASE Guidelines, and your own contributions to them, seem eminently well-thought-out.

The stipulation that you quote seems especially apropos to the present question. Do you happen to know whether Wikipedia's editing recommendations include this principle? If they don't, perhaps it should be proposed.

By the way, are you familiar with George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"? When I first read it, it confirmed me in some of my own approaches to writing and translating, designed to achieve clarity and to respect readers' limited time and energy. Nihil novi (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that there is very little guidance for translators in the Manual of Style. I suppose that before starting the discussion, we should first add a short set of guidelines for translators there and add a link to it in Translation. Referring to the Manual of Style would greatly increase our chances of winning this battle. Would you be willing to draft the guidelines on the basis of Orwell's principles (with references to Orwell and Strunk, for example)? Wishing you a nice day :-) Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I have written about translation theory and practice, my main experience has been on the practical side. Yours has been on both sides.  Would you consider drawing up a text and emailing it to me for possible suggestions that I might have?
 * Initial email contact can be made by referring to my talk-page left margin and clicking on "Toolbox," then "E-mail this user."
 * Best wishes, Nihil novi (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed your paper on "Abstracts of research articles: problems of translation." The paper appears to reach beyond translation to composition as well. It would be interesting to compare samples illustrating the various styles of abstract composition — when necessary, in translation. Nihil novi (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Poznań
I took my students on a trip to Poznań yesterday. Poznań is the perfect city for a day trip because everything is so close together and a lot of stuff is free on Saturday. We saw Stary Browar, Kościół Farny, Koziołki, Makieta dawnego miasta, Muzeum Narodowe, Ostrów Tumski, Muzeum Instrumentów Muzykalnych, and finished off with a wonderful meal in Warung Bali! Here's a great tip: Beza and capuccino at the place directly accross the street from the entrance to Muz. Narod. (Forget the name, but is says "Śniadanie" on the window. Excellent, elegant and costs only 12 PLN razem. Do try Warung Bali. I wish Wrocław had restaurants like that.

I've translated some papers for Maciej Giertych's institute at UAM before. Mostly I translate for Instytut Botaniki here in Wrocław, and for AR's and AM's all over Poland. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict at Talk:Voivodeships of Poland
My apologies. I re-introduced your comment, but, with the intention of making that talk page more understandable, I took the liberty of splitting it in two: the first sentence as reply to Piotrus and the rest of the paragraph as reply to Kotniski (diff). Of course, feel free to re-unite it or modify it at will. Again, I'm sorry. — Best, Ev (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem :-) Great thanks for your contributions to this discussion :-))) Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

About Aleksei Konstantinovich Zagulyaev
Hi Sylwia. Thank you for fixing that up! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Chemotherapy
You might take a look at the sourcing complaint at the bottom of Talk:Chemotherapy. WP:MEDRS strongly prefers secondary sources for this kind of general claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Gmina"
Dear Sylwia, You might be interested in: Talk:Gmina. Best, Nihil novi (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nihil :-) Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mycobiota
Hi Sylwia,

In regards to your recent creation, Mycobiota, unless you plan on expanding the article, I would suggest this article be merged into Fungi per WP:WINAD. Regards, -- Forward  Unto   Dawn  12:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=568533628 your edit] to Mycobiota may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * net/wiki/Mycobiota | title=LIAS Glossary | accessdate=14 August 2013}} or habitat type e.g. "the mycobiota of cocoa" {{cite journal | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mycobiota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa (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) 11:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael McGlynn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McGlynn. 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) 09:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rogalin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church. 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) 08:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Association of Science Editors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split. 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) 09:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Affabre Concinui, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican. 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) 10:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Affabre Concinui, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Herald. 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) 11:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lotto (band), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Trio and Aalst. 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) 10:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK
Hello! Your submission of World Day of the Poor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! North America1000 00:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK
Hello! Your submission of World Day of the Poor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! North America1000 14:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

QPQ reviews at WP:Did you know
Hi, thanks for your first submission at DYK. FYI, you are eligible to submit up to 5 articles before having to do a QPQ review. The two reviews that you submitted for your nomination were inadequate. A DYK review should explicitly confirm that the five main DYK criteria have been met. There is a handy Reviewers Template in the toolbox to the right of every DYK nomination which can help you list and evaluate the criteria. If you have any questions about the DYK process, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for World Day of the Poor
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Sylwia!
 * Nihil novi (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pommage


Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Pommage, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stratification (vegetation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cryptophyte ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Stratification_%28vegetation%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Stratification_%28vegetation%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 13:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sanction
I don't think you're getting it, judging from your latest comment on ANI. As a result, as pertaining to a related Arbitration decision, you are now topic banned from editing any pages that have to do with the COVID-19 topic area, broadly construed. Avenues of appeal may be found at WP:AE. Thanks in advance for your close attention. El_C 17:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I neglected to mention, the duration is set to indefinite. El_C 17:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban in this edit minutes after the topic ban was imposed, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
 * Hi Sylwia Ufnalska. I'm sorry to do this, but as long as this topic ban is outstanding you may not make any edits about COVID-19 in any form on any page on Wikipedia. Please see WP:TBAN for more information. I understand you feel strongly about this topic, but to protect the integrity of our information and for the benefit of our readers, Wikipedia relies on only the most reliable medical data and is not a forum for original research, and I don't foresee this topic ban being lifted until you demonstrate that you understand and abide by this principle. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked
Upon consideration, and following your email committing to abide by the topic ban as well as a note from a colleague, I'm lifting the block. The topic ban remains in place. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume ownership of articles, as you did at Chaplet of the Holy Spirit, you may be blocked from editing. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, I wasn't aware that such a behaviour is diruptive. I just wanted to avoid confusion. Perhaps the bestg solution in such a situation would be to remove the redirect completely. Are you able to do it? When I created the initial article entitled in short "Chaplet of the Holy Spirit",I wasn't aware that there exist some other chaplets of the Holy SpiritSylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are deletion processes available. You may be able to begin a requested move on the target article; if it succeeds and nobody else contests the redirect, then the target could be moved to the shorter name. Elizium23 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I waned to ask you to remove completely Chaplet of the Holy Spirit and leave Chaplet of the Holy Spirit and His Seven Gifts as it is.This would avoid confusion Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As you are the creator of that article, you can tag it at the top with db-author and that should attract an administrator to do a speedy deletion. Elizium23 (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Self-medication, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Self-medication check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Self-medication?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Urtica
On my talk page, you said: ''I appreciate you good will to avoid unconfirmed information, but I have cited a review and promising primary research. Unfortunately it's completely unprofitable to study common herbs and that is why less information is available about them. Because of unjustified bias against medicinal herbs, little attention is paid to their great potential. For centuries poor people have added stinging nettle to soups in early spring, helping them to survive the difficult period. During the pandemic it's crucial to draw researchers' attention to promising medicinal herbs. Why don't we leave the information and simply add an explanation like "Primary research suggests that ... but confirmation is still needed"? Articles about the current pandemic already mention which drugs are being tested, although their usefulness in fighting off this virus hasn't been confirmed yet''.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We still need to keep sources in line with WP:MEDRS. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2020
 * - Although your comments and intent to help are sincere, it is unproductive to publish unscientific concepts and quackery as advice or guidance for any topic, especially for an emergency as exists for COVID-19. The sources you used are unreliable for WP medical content: 1) the Journal, Molecules, is dubious for its predatory publishing practices, WP:CITEWATCH, and the content of the Kregiel article shows absence of scientific rigor by emphasizing undefined phytochemicals and traditional medicine practices, which are not used to cite medical information on Wikipedia; 2) the Polish institute and lab mice studies do not meet the quality of sources for an encyclopedia, which emphasizes WP:MEDRS reviews. Also see WP:MEDANIMAL, WP:NOTADVICE, and COVID-19 drug development. --Zefr (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is that all this only seems to be "unscientific concepts and quackery". I wish more research could be done now. Unfortunately, only drugs are now tested because of the unjustified bias against herbal plants. For thousands of years medicinal plants have helped the humankind to survive all adversities. I'm deeply convinced that stinging nettle could save much more lives than chemical drugs, thanks to its amazing nutritional and antiviral properties, indicated by the sources cited by me. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
About three weeks ago, enacted a topic ban from the COVID-19 topic area. This recent edit (and all your other recent edits), just like the things that led to the original topic ban, yet again failed to comply with our MEDRS guidelines. I'm genuinely sorry to do this, since I know you care deeply about this topic area and your cause. However, Wikipedia is not the right platform for any kind of advocacy and particularly not for medicine-related articles not supported at the level expected by WP:MEDRS. I am accordingly applying the sanction indicated above. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Also sorry it had to come to this, Sylwia Ufnalskam but I concur with my colleague. El_C 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)