User talk:Piotrus

File:Kyokpae banner.png

File:WikipediaSignpost icon.png You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Piotrus/Archive 15. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Archive

Talk archives: Archive 1 (moved Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (moved Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (moved May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (moved July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (moved September 27, 2005), Archive 6 (moved November 23, 2005), Archive 7 (moved January 7, 2006), Archive 8 (moved 19 March, 2006), Archive 9 (moved 6 May, 2006), Archive 10 (moved 17 June, 2006), Archive 11 (moved 28 July, 2006), Archive 12 (moved 25 September, 2006), Archive 13 (moved 28 October, 2006), Archive 14 (moved 27 December, 2006), Archive 15 (moved 4 February, 2007), Archive 16 (moved 20 March, 2007)

Have seen worse days. Reasons for my raising wikistress: Average levels of trolling by few users... Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :) If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that I will either: seek community approval of my adminship through an RfC; (no consensus = no change) choose to take the matter to ArbComm; resign my powers and stand again for adminship; at my discretion once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria and the matter concerns my admin powers rather than a non-admin editing concern. Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse. My "good standing" criteria include a) the requirement that if the user is calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least a week. b) the requirement that the user should be neutral towards my person. This means that if a user is or has been involved in a DR procedure with me as a party, I doubt that user is neutral and I reserve the right to not count this editor as "an editor in good standing" in this case. Hint: it's easy to find a neutral party, like mediators - if you can convince them you are right... c) I reserve the right to impose additional criteria in the future. I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms. Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 12 20 March 2007 About the Signpost WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" News and notes: Bad sin, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Order of Saint Stanislaus Regarding your comment here, can I just copy and paste the contents of the last four articles into one of the first two and then add a merge tag to the first two? Appleseed (Talk) 21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Troubles Hi Piotrus, Darwinek seems to be in troubles, please see here [1]. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Also request at ARBCOM has been opened [2]. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Belarus FAC is up Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Belarus has been up for about 2 days or so. If I haven't been doing to a dentist for everything under the sun, I would have a lot more of the questions done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Ok, fair enough. I knocked out all of the red links in the history section (still need to tackle some in the Culture section). I responded to your two {{fact}} templates; the first one I just removed the sentence and replaced it with already cited text. The second one, it belong to the same source as the next sentence (generally, if the information in two or more sentences are coming from the same source, I just usually cite the last sentence. That was how I was taught to do citations, but since this is Wikipedia not English 203, I should do it your way). As for the map issue, I honestly believe the map should still be there, since it is showing how the Belarusian lands were split between Poland and the Soviet Union. I made the caption a bit better. I hope this helps. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Me neither Well, that guy is on a tour, and, given what he allowed himself to say about me, I'm not ready to even pay attention to what he claims and argues (suffices to note that the emphasis is on "I would like you to state your opinion about Rumanization", which translates into "I have a POV to push"). In any case, I don't think the lead is wrong, but the sentence may be futile. Dahn 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC) In fact User:Dahn who just replied to you has been stalking and reverting my contributions since I started on WP. Look here for an example of his pushing of patent lies. It is quite unfortunate that you asked precisely his opinion. He seems to adopt the strategy that whatever I write, he reverts. What he writes to you goes in any case against every WP policy one may think of. So please decide for yourself about the issue or just ask somebody else. Icar 12:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC) There you go, Piotrus. I could not have illustrated the point better myself. Dahn 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek Hello, An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Education When is it Vandalism, fixing your lack of knowlege about Polish history. I know everything about you, you are all over the internet, making up your own proof to the stories that you are teaching your students. The hammer will never kill the white eagle. I am very sorry for you, being (I Think) Polish and promoting the death and destruction of you families history. Countries don't annex, did the U.S. annex Iraq? I don't now how was teaching you as you grow up, and you ideas placed on you. Freedom is Equality, having a all high cantrolling Government will never give you freedom because they will always afraid of a revolt. If a government comes and a kill one of your kids with no trial, I hope you will not set back and say It's my Governments wish. Please if this is just for your doctrine, then don't give up on your history because the polish only have each other, and other country fear the polish to the exstint of killing them for fear and the power of the polish mind. Please e_mail so we can have discuss history and polish believes. I am getting the Back by Polish Organizations in the USA and Polish. Thanks magusrobertus@yahoo.ie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Gutowski (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC). Try improving your command of written English language, for starters (the above mostly incomprehensible post being a good example). Then read up on the links from the welcome message I left at your page. Your edits to Wikipedia were mostly grammaticaly and styllisticaly wrong, and partially irrelevant to the topics involved.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Re: Lebensborn Given his various other accusations of people being right-wingers, fascists, etc., I'm not actually convinced that he didn't intend a political subtext here; but, in any case, let's assume for the sake of argument that the usage was purely as a metaphor. There are, in my opinion, different levels of "unacceptable" metaphors, ranging from the merely poorly-chosen ones to those which evoke comparisons so vile that excusing them is simply out of the question. In some sense, the very specificity of the term used is a negative factor here; I find it utterly inconcievable that Darwinek could have chosen the lebensborn comparison without actually being aware of what the history of the program was—and this necessarily forces me to conclude that he considered it acceptable to compare a fellow editor to Himmler. Frankly, I see no reason why we should tolerate such commentary here. (It's a bit like the difference between saying "the admins are all thugs bent on abusing innocent editors" and "the admins are rounding people up like the Einsatzgruppen"; one is merely an insulting comparison, while the other is intended to evoke a very specific—and extraordinarily hateful—image.) Kirill Lokshin 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC) I would have thought that a personal block from Jimbo would generally be sufficient warning for most people; it's regrettable that Darwinek doesn't seem to have gotten the idea yet, but we can only give him so many chances. As far as your case: based on a brief look, yes, I'd say that comments of that sort are unacceptable. But I haven't examined the entire context and history here (and, frankly, would prefer not to, as it's likely to become Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Poland-Lithuania rather than a personal matter). Kirill Lokshin 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Realistically, your options for a permanent resolution are either asking for a community sanction of some sort or ArbCom. Kirill Lokshin 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC) DYK On 23 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Wilno (1939), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. --Carabinieri 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Presecution of Political bloggers Czesc. I zauwazylem ze Pan, ponowne odnowil texty Biophys'ego ktore nie zawiera zadnej informacji o blogach. Prosze Pana, z poczatku czytac texty ktore sa reference'ami, i tylko zatym cos robic. Po drugie, mam nadzeje ze Pan to robi nie zatym ze jest bardzo zainteresowany w dezynformacjii o Rosjii.Vlad fedorov 05:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Pan Vlad: Pan Piotrus understands English very well. Please try to stick to English in the projectspace. --Irpen Tranlsations for ArbCom I marked the threads in question in your archives. Could you go to the Archive 13 linked above and add the full an honest translations of the threads in question for the ongoing ArbCom case. --Irpen 06:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Deletion of The Independent School, Inc. I removed the article at The Independent School, Inc. per your lapsed prod last night. The original author has requested that the article be restored, which I have done per the prod guidelines. You can read his request at User_talk:Kuru#Deletion_of_The_Independent_School.2C_Inc. - the next step is AFD, but you may want to wait a day or two to see if he improves the article or establishes some sort of notability. Kuru talk 23:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC) african poles Could someone please tell me how much of the polish population is from "African" decent? new interesting article Check this out: Battle of Jarosław, and please, make it better :) Pan Wikipedia 12:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Soviet occupation of Romania Hi, Piotrus. Could you please weigh in on the dispute here? It seems to me the other side is arguing that it was not an occupation, but as the citations I have provided in footnote 1 show, many legitimate sources call it that. See also my explanation on the talk page. Thank you for your assistance. Biruitorul 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Image:Replace this image1.svg Maps are not I feel a good target at the moment. Buildings I'm working on but my inkscape-fu is weak so it will may not be finished tonight.Geni 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC) NoSeptember Admin Project list of user pages Thanks for the note. Please feel free to add new pages to my list when you find them :). NoSeptember 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 13 26 March 2007 About the Signpost From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) History of Poland FAR I am going to remove some photos from the article, but I removed the Patria poster before I saw the comment on the FAR. I want to realign the posters, but I am just not sure how. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Attribution There has been an extensive effort to combine Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (together with much of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) into a new policy called Wikipedia:Attribution, and its FAQ, WP:ATTFAQ. Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo questioned whether the result had adequate consensus, and requested: "a broad community discussion on this issue", (now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion), followed by "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results." (now being drafted at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll) You are invited to take part; the community discussion should be as broad as possible. If you wish to invite other experienced and intelligent editors, please use neutral language. This message, for example, is {{ATTCD}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I have removed the antidemocratic from the text Hard to believe.Xx236 11:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Third Opinion Hey, I was going to weigh in on the article Kraków pogrom, and wanted to hear what you felt the major disagreement was. I think I know, but it would help me understand the breadth of the situation if you tell me yourself. You can respond on my Talk Page, where I've set up a section heading specifically for this. Arcayne 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Names to correct Hi there, Piotrus! I corrected the names and removed Russian patronimics (they don't really use them in Wikipedia). I also corrected their ranks (colonel general instead of general colonel etc.). Happy editing! KNewman 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Fair use rationale for Image:Northern Group of Forces.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Northern Group of Forces.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Northern Group of Forces WikiThanks Thanks for creating Northern Group of Forces. This was fast! -- Petri Krohn 01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Biało-czarne III Rzesza budowała autostrady a ZSRR był postępowy. Stanowczo nie należy ich krytykować.Xx236 06:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Google Book links They hardly ever come up for me, Piotrus. Sandford does. Even some of the Google Book links you quote in discussions don't usually come up for me, which is frustrating. I have a feeling these links are volatile from user to user. We can link the books themselves, if you like; but I suspect that trying to link the pages is futile. It's misleading to link the reader to a page when if he clicks the link he doesn't get the page, only the cover page. We could link to the cover pages in the references section. qp10qp 16:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC) I will put them back in because it is your article (give me a day or two). But I feel that they are unprofessional and will store up nothing but potential link rot for the future. (I even sometimes find that I can't get some of my own search results back a few minutes later; so I am learning that if I do find a page, I must make notes from it immediately. It is the same with the poppies in my garden: if I don't sniff them straight away, it may be too late.) qp10qp 17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Curbing the pushers of the "friendly" POV Piotrus, I know that you repeatedly refused to reign down on the POV-pushers if the POV they were pushing seemed "right" to you no matter what behavior they expressed. Molobo, Ksenon/Litwa, LUCPOL or Mathiasrex who you even instructed on how to file a 3RR report on myself. But I really have no choice but to ask you again, now in connection with LUCPOL. As we speak he repeatedly removed my well explained tag from the NGF article without discussion and without adding a single entry to a talk page. I request that you take him to the woodshed about disruption and restore the tag on your own until our discussion is finished as I expect the fellow to be looking forward for an opportunity to accuse me in 3RR. He may even be the same fellow as Mathiasrex. --Irpen 20:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Irpen, please face it: people disagree. Sometimes, they even disagree with you. In that case, you may be in minority, and your edits will be reverted. We all have to live with it. I have tried to address your concerns raised at Talk:Northern Group of Forces, but really, your constant objections to expanding and featuring any articles which show less than perfect part of the Soviet/Russian states are quite discouraging. Please note I didn't plan on expanding the NGA article with details on those issues, but as the saying go: if you push... expect something to return.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Piotrus, this is not about people disagreeing. It is about acting reasonably or not. My objection are well explained and out of nowhere appears this friend of yours who reverts me without adding anything to the discussion. And, as always, you refused to curb on the friendly troll and use him instead as battering ram. I tried to appeal to your consciousness once again. Guess, I made a mistake. The rest of your accusations are not new and I will not dignify them with a response just to repeat what was said earlier. --Irpen 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Irpen, I find your actions - tagging articles you dislike with POV tags, arguing they should not be featured on DYKs, GAs, FAs, etc. - all without providing any references - much more problematic. Any editor has the right to disagree with you, and calling them 'trolls' only reflects your belief in your own infallability. Again, I invite you to present references supporting your POV if you want to claim an article is not NPOV. I have replied to you on talk of that article, and I believe I addressed all of your concerns.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC) No you did not but I am now banned from correcting it thanks to the fierce reverting campaign run by you and your friend who mysteriously appeared out of nowhere just to revert me without a single entry at the talk page. Your refusal to intervene is telling enough. Now, I already explained to you that sources and neutrality while related is not an identical concept. Tendentious presentation, no matter how sourced, remains tendentious. The example of Legnica issue perfectly fits the pattern of Russian Enlightenment when the lengthy piece on the issue that belongs elsewhere is pasted into the article to give some POV an undue weight. I leave this article in disgust, note your siding with the friendly troll and wish you luck. But under this circumstances the article cannot be featured at the main page and I will reiterate this again. I expect your accusations that I try to derail anything that does not fit my POV. This is inline with the bizarre statement by your friend whose behavior is being scrutinized by an ArbCom, the statement which I understood, despite your refusal to translate it. I will not even dignify this outrageous accusations with the response. You can claim all you want. --Irpen 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC) You cannot claim that the article is POVed without presenting sources to back you up. Please read WP:NPOV: what you are doing is using your own personal opinion, which is nothing but the most extreme case of 'undue weight'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC) You just pretend to not understand that WP:RS and WP:NPOV are different policies and they address different issues. Sigh. I've heard it already. --Irpen 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC) No, Irpen, I understand completly that you are not a reliable source. EOT.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Another straw man argument. No wikipedian can claim to be a reliable source. I never claimed otherwise. --Irpen 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC) No, you just claim that certain articles are POVed and fail to give any sources. But of course since you are representing some 'great universal truth', you are neither presenting your own POV nor need to cite any sources. How could I have failed to recognize that... not. If you have nothing reasonable to say, please just go away. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC) This is not about sources. I do not question facts, I question the presentation and I explained at talk why so. I tried to make some edits without deleting a single fact or source, just correcting the mistakes and rounding the angles were the undue weight was given to the facts of relative lesser importance (Russian Enlightenment syndrome displayed here in Legnica issue.) Based on the same set of sources the article may be written neutrally and may be written to air some nationalist grievances brought up to satisfy one's agenda at wikipedia. Trying to reason with you at your talk when I see the problem was a mistake which I was making repeatedly. Trying to bring to your attention the disrputive behavior of your compatriot was also a mistake since I have tried that before (WRT to Molobo, Ksenon's socks, Mathiasrex, and now Lucpol) was also an exercise of futility. I should have known that too. Anyway, since you are now telling me to leave your talk page alone I will do that per your request. I should have known better from dealing with you in the past. --Irpen 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I am only learning from the best, Irpen.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Irpen, that you should have known better is quite an understatement. Dr. Dan 03:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I hope that P.P. (aka Prokonsul Piotrus) would not ban me (as he threatens several times already) if I write about this situation. The same situation regarding usage of user: LUCPOL’s “services” I meet at Ponary massacre. Firstly Piotrus tried his best to remove referenced facts about Polish Jew killers with shocking edit summary , such behavior was denounced by other contributor [3] . And now then P.P. is alone with his POV and removal of facts, suddenly out of nowhere user: LUCPOL jumps in and restores “proper” version of article by removing referenced facts and tags presented by different contributors with with edit summary - this is OK . Feel the power? And literally LUCPOL did not add a single entry to a talk page why removal of facts is “OK”. He also did not add a single entry to the article before nor related articles. But just looking into LUCPOL contributions such behavior is not isolated, exact same happened and in other places. I find disturbing that contributor who allegedly can’t present his view and defensive speech to his ArbCom case [4] due to poor command of English (as Piotrus notes), but can easily remove facts and distort articles. Another interesting development, as P.P. notes LUCPOL has bad command of English (btw, did he/she understand articles in which he/she intervenes?), translation of LUCPOL’s thoughts to ArbCom and RFI was made also by Piotrus . So that do we have – same “contribution” scheme – when Piotrus intervenes in content dispute and needs "support" LUCPOL, who enjoyed Piotrus’ help in his ArbCom and RFI cases, jumps in out of nowhere and restores "proper" article version supported by Piotrus, without any further involvement in articles . Probably we will see more such developments in the coming future. M.K. 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC) DYK Did you know? was updated. On March 30, 2007, a fact from the article Battle of Jarosław, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. Thanks for all your work Piotrus! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Romania and the Warsaw pact Thanks for the link. Dpotop 06:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Request Regarding your phrase at my talk page, I don't know that phrase but I guess I get that. Regarding your request of Milovice geo-stub, there are three municipalities in the Czech Republic called Milovice. Two of them are villages, one is a town. Which one do you meant? - Darwinek 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)