User talk:Staszek Lem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/shortlist

lulz: User talk:70.128.120.202

Dispute resolution noticeboard request re Peter Swirski claim to UMSL faculty status[edit]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Peter_Swirski.23Inflated_claims_of_UMSL_connections_and_possible_COI

I have requested that a disinterested third party weigh in on the editorial contention that the claim on the Peter Swirski page regarding faculty status at UMSL is erroneous. My pardon for using the Wikipedia terms "arbitration" and "mediation" incorrectly. My intention was to initially discuss this issue on the subject's wikipedia page. Failing that, I feel this is the next appropriate step for attempting to resolve the issue. In over 9 years of editing and through 5,000+ edits I have never had the need for formal dispute resolution, mediation, or arbitration. I request your forbearance in my inadvertent misuse of wikipedia terminology in this case. Quartermaster (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

:Core_content_policies[edit]

Question about the revert here ..I am puzzled at why you believe more information about the topic at hand on this essay page is not valuable to our readers. You mentioned in your edit summary that it s an "internal page" ...as someone who edits theses types of pages I can assure you list of books about the topic at hand is the norm on many. What are the problems with the books listed?? Are you suggesting MIT or Stanford University are not reliable sources?-- Moxy (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy: Please notice in my edit summary: "... it may (and will) change." Consequently, MIT is not reliable source about our current policies. This is our internal affair, and only our community is the sole reliable source about policies of our community. No need to increase readers' confusion. If our policies are poorly written, then we have to edit them, and absolutely not refer: "OK, if you failed to grasp it, see what a Stanford professor says". I am sure buddies of Andrew Lih or Charles Matthews would love to list their books wherever possible. So hereby I invoke WP:UNDUE: their insights may be valuable, but irrelevant for the purposes of our guidelines. On the other hand, you are more than welcome to add these books to essays: places where personal opinions are vented (some of them are widely cited, but nevertheless they are not not guidelines). Staszek Lem (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think there is some sort of confusion here ..as the page in question is an essay...not a guideline or policy. Are you sure you are aware of the page we are talking about? As someone who edits polices, guidelines and info pages I can assure that having more info for our readers is helpful. Still not sure why more info is not valuable in thus case at all -- Moxy (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Moxy: Nope. Not an essay. I checked before I wrote, because, as I said, in essays it would be OK. This page is a first-stop one. From it, people must be directed to our rules, not to opinions about them. Dissipates attention. re: "More info is helpful": the whole idea behind this page is to be a minimal hub to start from. Anyway, I reverted myself after figured out how to keep your list: It must be phrased not as "further reading", i.e., as an endorsement, but as a regular section saying something like, "with wikipedia coming to age it became subject of scholarly research and monographs blablabla...:" I believe you can do this better than me. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Your not new so I am assuming you have seen our other main "info pages" (that are classified as essays here on Wikipedia) like WP:About or WP:HOW that have these sections. I will try and thin of better wording for the section...but its best to lead our readers to as much info as possible on all topics...as internal information may not be presented in the best manner or complete. As for it being minimal start page..we have many other pages for that that have much less info on them....this page is for the history on the topic. I will chalk this up to a simple oversight on what we are here to do..that is to inform readers as much as possible ...inducing reading material from outside researchers and opinions on internal matters. Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia. -- Moxy (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly my last point: it is OK to have info about books on wikipedia, but they should not be endorsed as an authoritative source about our WP:CCPOL. Also, I can say the same to you: "Your not new", so I assume you know the difference between essay and guideline. Therefore I attribute your stance only to the fact that you somehow formed yourself an opinion that it is an essay and didn't double-check when questioned. In fact, neither WP:About, nor WP:HOW and nor WP:CCPOL are essays. They are in categories Wikipedia administration Wikipedia help Wikipedia policies and guidelines . Unlike essays, pages in these categories require a significant community consensus and changing of their content requires deep deliberation. See, e.g. the hatnote: "This is an information page that describes a communal consensus". Books are not community consensus, they are personal opinions and they cannot be suggested as "further reading" about actual community consensus. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
O well we will have to disagree about the classifications of the pages I write and how I structured them. In the future try to be more open to giving our readers more info from academic sources. I does no harm to info our readers with multiple POV;s. Having a further reading section does not mean we endorse anything ..its simply more info on the topic at hand and is the reason we are all here.These are not guidelines or policies they are INFORMATION pages about our policies and guidelines. -- Moxy (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Moxy: Yes they are information pages, but they are not categorized as essays, once again Category:Wikipedia_basic_information is in Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Therefore they must reflect community consensus. And I do not disagree that user may be informed about different opinions. However I disagree that a further reading section does not mean we endorse anything. The mere inclusion is an endorsement by itself: you list it because you think it is relevant for correct understanding our policies, right?. You don't list, say, an article "Wikipedia" from Encyclopedia Dramatica, right? Even in policy pages we have well-recognized essays in "see also" . But usually they are clearly marked as essays (at least that's what I and some other wikipedians to). The same here: there must be a clear indication that books are just opinions, not consensus. People tend to think that printed word is some kind of ultimate wisdom (after all, wikipedian's ultimate trump is a reference, right?) In the case of our policies it is an exception, and must be clearly marked a such. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No guess work pls . WP:PGLIFE - {{Information page}} - All is under Admin if it has Wiki in the title...anyway s this "essay/advice/info page".. I have added some info and changed the section title. See if this helps your opposition.-- Moxy (talk)
@Moxy:Yes, no guesswork, you are right, but WP:PGLIFE says "Essays and information pages", i.e., they are expressly distinguished. Anyway, you did what I had in mind, thanks, bye. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Criticism of Wikipedia, whether on its content, its community, or its organization -> regarding the bolded, do you mean the Wikimedia organization? If so, it should be wiki-linked? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Starship.paint: I meant the organization of the wikipedia community; the way how it operates (admins, rules, etc.), not wikimedia. If you know a better word, please suggest. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)\

Dispute Resolution on Psychometrics[edit]

Are you requesting to be added to the list of parties to the dispute resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: No. I am not a party I was offering a general-purpose opinion about lists of an uninvolved person. I have no opinion on the particular subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. The section name has been changed to reflect statements by other editors rather than by unregistered editors. (It was there because we originally had an unregistered editor, which you obviously are not.) You will not be added to the list of parties, but are welcome to comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


Polish-Americans and Jews[edit]

Given that A) Jack Warner was born in Ontario, Canada B) His parents were Yiddish-speaking (per the Wikipedia article on him)

in order to call him or Helea "Polish-American" you'll need to provide a reliable source saying that he self-identified as such. I don't need to provide a source, since the Polish American article already makes it clear that Jews living in Poland at the time as a rule, did not consider themselves to be Polish Americans. "Jewish immigrants from Poland, largely without exception, identified as "Jewish" or "Russian Jewish" when inside the United States, and faced a historical trajectory far different from that of the ethnic Poles." (which has a citation from a reliable source). I'm going to re-revert your change, and feel free to re-add them only if you can find a reliable source. Thanks.

DemocraticLuntz (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues[edit]

Hi Staszek Lem. The reason for this edit is because the Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues should only contain actively editing people. Please see the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues, which is what promted my to attempt to clean out the inactive editors from the category. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thx for expl. YOu could have written edit summary like: "rm category per statute" . Surely, not many people remember all minute detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Autopatrolled granted[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Staszek Lem, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! MusikAnimal talk 00:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence in fiction[edit]

In order for an example to be listed in an "in popular culture" article, it still needs a source that verifies that it is a notable example of such a topic. Per WP:BURDEN, you should not restore unsourced additions; if you think it's verifiable, then locate a source that verifies it. For example, see list of fictional child prodigies. Note how each entry has a citation to a independent reliable source that verifies that the entry is due. It took forever, but almost all of those citations were added by me. I will eventually get around to doing the same for this article. Right now, it needs more citations, not more unsourced additions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I understand and share you concern with "popculture" lists. I am doing such cleanup myself whenever I run into an example farm. However it seems that we slightly differ about the criteria of inclusion. I take it is the subject constitutes a significant part of the plot, then it is reasonable to assume it is a notable example. I've seen many disputes where it is argued that self-evident examples do not necessarily need references for being examples of some phenomenon, per WP:V, if they are not disputed. In our case:
  • is "evil AI" is present Code Lyoko? - yes and this is verifiable
  • is "evil AI" a notable part of the plot of Code Lyoko - yes and it is verifiable
  • is "evil AI" from Code Lyoko can be an example for the discussed article - yes, per common sense, because you can easily find sources which say that X.A.N.A. is an evil AI.
  • Is X.A.N.A. is a notable example in the sense that there is an article about "evil AI" which lists it as an example? - I don't know and I don't think we have a guideline to demand this. So if you was to make such a guideline, please start a central discussion somewhere, otherwise you can start hundreds of edit wars in numerous pop-lists (and I will join you, because I'd really like to cut them all as well, especially the AI :-) But I doubt you will find much support. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If you think that this is a notable example of evil A.I., you should cite a source that verifies this. Otherwise, it's original research to assert that it's a notable example – or even an example at all. I could say that The Hobbit is an example of evil A.I. and truly believe it in all my heart, but without a citation to a reliable source to verify it, it's just original research on my part. I think you see the problem. Editors do not make the determination as to whether an individual work is an example of a plot element, and they don't decide whether it's notable. This is handled through citations to independent reliable sources. As WP:BURDEN says, you really should not be restoring unsourced content once it's been challenged. The proper action is to locate a source. The burden is on you to prove that this is a notable example. I will go through the article and add citations later, but it is not really high on my list currently. In the meantime, any unsourced examples can be deleted by any editor per WP:V. Your interpretation of the plot is probably correct, and I'm not challenging that; however, I am challenging your original research, or, more correctly, that of the original IP editor. If you really insist, we can go to RSN, where they will probably tell you what I just did. The last time I did this, people said I was wasting time by bringing such an obviously open-and-shut issue to the noticeboard, so I'd rather not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ehh, I found a more-or-less reliable source for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @NinjaRobotPirate: I am not against WP:BURDEN. HOwever its application requires common sense. To claim that Hobbit is AI is against common sense, so I can demand the ref. X.A.N.A is verififiably AI, and to challenge this fact is not common sense. However you do have right to demand references. But this is done with {{cn}} tag rather than outright revert. This will give time contributors to find a reference. This is the spirit of wikipedia cooperation. Outright deletion is for things which are reasonably expected to be wrong. If we go amok and start deleting unsourced text we will delete 37% of wikipedia. WP:V does not demand this. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Cieszyn Silesia[edit]

[1] -> the second uncited statement could be deduced from these two maps: File:Gminy zamieszkane przez Ślązaków.png, File:Wyniki RAŚ według gmin w wyborach do sejmiku województwa śląskiego (2010).png, but I guess it needs some more explicit citations? D_T_G (PL) 19:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


BoNM - Poland.png The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class
For your continued edits on Poland-related topics, I am proud to award you The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

this WikiAward was given to Staszek Lem by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here on 02:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages[edit]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Zbrzyca River, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Krëbane[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Krëbane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lithuania–Poland border[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting NACs[edit]

Per WP:NACD, please do not reopen non-admin closures of discussions you've participated in. Alakzi (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Thanks for defending me on my ANI reporting of a particular individual. At least I'm not the only one who thought it was not acceptable.  — Calvin999 19:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Aviation lists[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Aviation lists. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

How to do it.[edit]

Sorry for putting my remark on the AIV page instead of here. That was thoughtless of me. What you should do: It's the same old advice you've doubtless heard many times before: focus on the content rather than the contributor. Be polite to people even when they are behaving badly. Instead of saying, "Can't you read?" you could say "Please don't remove deletion discussion templates". Telling him to take a break was good advice, as he is obviously upset. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: While in general I would agree, but in this case the issue was behavior, not content. The edit history clearly shows that this person cannot or would not read other's comments, see eg. this one. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Logic would tell you that, but people don't behave logically when they are upset. Their emotions take over. So, in addition to your two possibilities ("he can't read"; "he's a vandal"), I offer a third possibility: people say and do things when they're upset that they otherwise would not say or do. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Once again, referring to this one, I can imagine that the person was upset that they were reverted, but I don't think we are in the business of brain-shrinkers here; we are writing wikipedia. If a person numerous times ignores clearly written comments, then regardless their fragile psyche, they are disrupting wikipedia. Since you appear to be willing to mentor this user, please tell him not to act while being upset, or else. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I already did that, at 19:40. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Yes, I've noticed that (that's why I wrote about your mentoring), but you did not advice them not to act while upset. And not to piss on the walls, and not to break toys, etc. And next time he deletes a referenced text you tell him not to delete referenced text. And when he replaces the text of article Poles with that of "Polack" you will tell them not to replace. Well, it's your personal time. I have a hobby of writing wikipedia in my free time. I may admit you have a hobby (or duty) of teaching people manners in your free time. We both have our own fun. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: @Diannaa: I did not vandalise that Wikipedia page. As you can see in this article of the 21st Academy Awards, the comment regarding Humphrey Bogart's performance in The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre being snubbed is extremely similar to what I wrote of Psycho, Vertigo and Anthony Perkins and James Stewart and Kim Novak and Alfred Hitchcock direction of Vertigo being snubbed and therefore I belive that this does not constitute as vandalism, but contributing to Wikipedia in a style that others have freely contributed. Furthermore, I understand that you have gone over my irrational thought, but I do not like this being expressed too vividly. I can't get everything in the world, but that is something I would like to happen. And :::@Staszek Lem: I am probably a different type of person to both of you, but you can't go around, criticizing an administrator when you have no seeable power yourself. 'Piss on the walls.' 'Break toys.' 'OR ELSE.' HAVE I BECOME A MERE OBJECT IN YOUR CONVERSATION? I am disgusted. It is clear that you have no consideration for others feelings whatsoever, even if as is the case with :::@Diannaa: they are trying to HELP YOU. I am glad you were kind enough to tell me to take a break, but in that manner, if I was anyone else, I would have carried on doing the same old thing because I was infuriated with your thoughtlessness. I'm under 15. You were probably just a naïve as me when you were that age. If you don't know me, don't persecute me. User: Samuel Williscroft (User talk: Samuel Williscroft) 08:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Identity theft in the United States[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Identity theft in the United States. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD[edit]

Typically the lead is 4 paragraphs. Not sure why the heading "abdominal gerniation"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A brain herniation is not called a hernia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI Thread[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Staszek_Lem reported by User:Samuel Williscroft. Thank you. DES (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)