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)

Reasons for my raising wikistress: Harassment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by Piotrus 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. ArbCom/Piotrus Your behavior will be scrutinized here: [1] M.K. 10:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Piotrus, I would like to express my support for you in this matter; it is clear that M.K.'s accusations are without merit. I am not listed as one of the "involved parties", but I wonder if it's still possible for me to provide a statement to ArbCom? Appleseed (Talk) 19:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Polish translation of edit summary Hi there... I am wondering, as someone who indcates they can translate polish, could you review the following edit summary for this diff [2] and let me know it's general content. Based on the topic and the fact the edit reversed my editing, I believe it is likely in polish and directed at me. It is unlikely I will report it or anything, but it is always nice to know if someone is slamming you. Thanks.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 12:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Another user got to this already. Thanks anyways.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies Your latest proposal seems to have broken ilink...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks I have now fixed it, Buy what did you think about it?Max ╦╩ 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC) koloman gögh you are invited to improve article, thanks --Mt7 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC) what you say is humbug, no one is czechoslovak player Ján Čapkovič, Antonín Panenka, Ladislav Jurkemik,Ivo Knoflíček, František Plánička, Ján Švehlík, Josef Masopust, Alexander Vencel (born 1944), Ivo Viktor, we need a new wikipedia for you. --Mt7 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Thanks for the link. I will take a look. How did you know about my interest in this sort of stuff? --HappyCamper 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Prodding List of... article I do not think that you should be prodding List of... articles as you currently are doing. You tried to mass AfD them, and that did not work; nor was there consensus that it was a good idea. Nowhere have I seen evidence of consensus being reached that the deletion is a good thing. I think you should seek to get some consensus before engaging in this exercise. At the moment it appears to be your personal opinion that there's something wrong with these articles; you look like you're rampaging through Wikipedia without giving a second thought to other people's opinion.--Tagishsimon (talk) Yeah, I've read more now & see slightly better where you're coming from. The UK list does seem to be actively maintained. Can't speak for others. Let's see if they get deprodded; I'll stand on the side-lines. --Tagishsimon (talk) The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class Thank you, Piotr. I appreciate it very much. I'm moving the awards to my userpage. Thanks a million. --Poeticbent  talk  22:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC) You are welcome But - remember, every rose has thorns :) The more active you are, the more effort you put in - the more enemies you make... there are days I wonder if it is worth it, really... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, I'm aware of that new development [3]. I read the initial statements yesterday but only today noticed how other somewhat familiar names have reappeared jumping with glee on the bandwagon. I don't know what to say, I don't have the nerve for exchanges that lead nowhere like in the case of Anti-Polonism versus the euphemistic Anti-Polish sentiment and so on. This is why I admire your stamina even more. --Poeticbent  talk  01:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC) You don't have to say anything - in many regards you are luckly you don't have to waste time on that. On the other hand, if you agree with some of the comments, or disagree with others, you are certainly allowed to comment. Ability to diffuse information quickly and receive comments from all sides are what makes Wikipedia strong, after all. And the dilemma of being silent is similar to the one of 'should I vote in the elections or not? Kind of a free rider dilemma when I think of it: if others will comment and solve it, it's good, I don't have to do anything... but if everyone will think like that... anyway, no hurry, and certainly, no pressure :) PS. You send me MSN info once but I never saw you afterwards - are you still using it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC) I think you have a strong case there but I will look at the comments again tomorrow morning and possibly express my opinion in this matter. I’m going to see a play tonight and have to get ready. The problem is that some of those diatribes take hours to read and make me feel guilty for wasting time trying to get to the bottom of it. The long learning curve of some of those hard-headed editors make me think of my father. --Poeticbent  talk  02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Arbitration statement length Please note that an arbitrator has requested that you reduce the length of your statement on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) DYK On 22 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish legislative election, 1928, 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 20:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Did you know? was updated. On April 23, 2007, a fact from the article Maryla Jonas, 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. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Reification (fallacy) Thanks for the article, Piotrus. How does one generate the kind of notice that I received from you the next time a user accesses en.Wikipedia? Two comments on the article: Your subheading "Ethymology" is not as familiar as the equivalent "Etymology" – the former redirects to the latter in en.Wikipedia. Also, in the "Theory" section you write "A reification circle refers to the event when a norm, first seen as artificial and forces,...." It makes sense to me if "forces" should be "forced" but perhaps you had something else in mind that I'm not getting. I'll duplicate these comments on the Reification (fallacy) talk page if you want to discuss. —Blanchette 06:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC) a recent {{prod}} I left a message for you here. I can see your point about not keeping redundant information, as the two locations can get out of sync, causing confusion. But, if the out-of-date, and possibly redundant info hasn't been checked, before the article is removed, it is lost. And I think that should be checked first. Probably a lot of work to do a proper job of it. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 15:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC) LWD Szpak On 24 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article LWD Szpak, 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. --howcheng {chat} 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Your arbcom comment Thanks for your comment wrt the Romania case. You wrote: However if incivility and other disruptive behaviour took place, it should be analyzed [...] And if some parties who are guilty of it here are the same who come up in other cases (like mentioned Latvia case), I think ArbCom should consider doing something about such repeated offenders: looking over Romania case, I certainly see disruption by some people whose behaviour has been condemned by both past ArbCom cases, and in other DR proceedings Maybe I am suffering from certain delusions, but may be I am correct on who you mean by "certain users". In this case, please reread the Latvia case, note the list of users ArbCom found engaged in "poor behavior", reread the talk of the Romania article find those engaged in poor behavior there as well and compare the list. I am writing to you off the arbcom page because the page is already loaded, but I welcome your continued scrutiny. In fact, from the pattern of your edits that show up in certain articles I am aware of being under the radar and it does not bother me. So, I would be interested in your more detailed analysis rather than a totally unsupported statement. --Irpen 05:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Leaving my comments in the air with lost context When you remove or significantly alter your comments to which I already replied, my comments start to look irrelevant at worst or strange and mysterious at best. Please post your new thoughts below (rather than in place) of old thoughts so that I know what I should be replying to and the reader may follow the discussion. TIA, --Irpen 05:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Somehow one of my comments there got duplicated and I needed to fix it. By all means please note your reply was to an earlier version of my post if it matters, I occasionaly expand my post with relevant items and if we talk in near-same time it may be indeed somewhat confusing. On your side, please remember to indent your posts properly, this makes everything much less confusing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 3, Issue 17 23 April 2007 About the Signpost Administrator goes rogue, is blocked Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion Canadian politician the subject of an edit war Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox" News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones Wikipedia in the news 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 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 3O ToT I am removing Wikipedia:Third opinion Time of Troublesrequest because you did not include the section on the talk page it related to and there seem to be more than two people involved now. If I am mistaken please resubmit. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Polish Communes Hi. You are an admin here, so I'd like to ask you for something. After my talk with User:Marcin Suwalczan, we agreed to keep standard of "Name Commune", not "Gmina Name". But I was move few articles before: Gmina Abramów; Gmina Adamów, Łuków County; Gmina Adamów, Zamość County; Gmina Adamówka, Gmina Aleksandrów, Biłgoraj County; Gmina Aleksandrów, Piotrków Trybunalski County; Gmina Aleksandrów Kujawski and Gmina Aleksandrów Łódzki, all of them should be moved back. And, as You know, it is not possible without deletion of redirect pages. Sorry for this perturbation. Regards Lajsikonik 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC) User:87.187.170.182(talk) We have a new anon on a destructive spree. Can you take care of this? Thanks. --Poeticbent  talk  15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC) IRC Okay, you're added. You may have to type /msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins before joining. --Interiot 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Reification (fallacy) On 26 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reification (fallacy), 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. --howcheng {chat} 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Nie movie po polsku... ...but you do, of course. Can you leave a note for Commons:User:Ocuish? He or she is uploading images to Commons, but in the process expanding .jpg to .jpeg. That just means work for nothing at our end. Example: Image:Airport Terminal.jpg went to Commons:Image:Airport Terminal.jpeg. It could be that they were called .jpeg on the Polish wiki, but maybe you could ask him/her if there is a reason for it. Many thanks in advance for your multilingual assistance! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC) WP:NCGN Hi Piotrus, I am sorry to disturb you with this, but I would greatly appreciate if you can look at the edits (well, in fact just reverts) by User:Odbhss. He is reverting to a version contradicting WP:NCGN.[4][] I have tried to explain him/her the convention on his/her talk page, but to no avail. He/she has a clear POV,[5] but I believe we should play by rules regardless our POV. What should I do? I have discussed WP:NCGN with other Hungarian editors on their notice board and, although one of them opposes the convention in general, the rest seem to accept it. Communication with Odbhss is kind of... not extremely fruitful. See User talk:Odbhss. I would be grateful for any help. Tankred 02:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your quick answer. My interpretation is that alternative names of towns should be placed in the lead of the main articles about those towns, but not in the body of other articles. The only exception is if a widely accepted historic name in English can be identified on a talk page of the main article. Odbhss' interpretation is: "Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers Historical names can even be used in the lead, not just article body". The article is History of Hungary and the edit in question is [6]. Basically, I prefer a version using the geographic names as they are used in the titles of the main articles. This new user is reverting to a version, in which they are Hungarian names (and in one case also a German name) listed whenever a geographic name is not Hungarian. I believe it is against the convention. Tankred 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Sarkar's Social Cycle Theory Hi, Your claim that Sarkar's Social Cycle Theory is a hoax or to tie its legitimacy with number of Google hits is amuzing. Please refer to the page were you deposited the claim. Here is the reply. Please consider resolving this issue before other measures need to be taken with regard to the offending entry. Answer on the P. R. Sarkar talk page: "This is incorrect. There are plenty of hits of Sarkar's "social cycle theory" relating to Sarkar. Try the follwing search string "social cycle theory" & "sarkar". Please note "Sarker" is an incorrect spelling of Sarkar. In the Talk page of the present "Social cycle theory" the following was written: Wrong title for this article. The term Social Cycle Theory was first used in relation to The Law of the Social Cycle invented by P.R. Sarkar in his book Human Society, Vol. 2 published by Ananda Marga Press in Calcutta, India in the late 1950s. The term 'Social Cycle Theory' became popularised as the term for this law in other works in India and later in the West, including in the #1 New York Times best seller The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra published by Simon and Schuster in 1987. The SCT term was earlier introduced by Batra in his less well known book The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism: a New Study of History, published by MacMillan in 1976. The use of this term as a description of this article is therefore wrong and likely illegal. The term Sociological Cycle Theory could be used for this entry. The issue concerns the right to the use of this title. It has been used in copyrighted works for many decades. The use of this name for other theories is not as per academic standard and should be discontinued. Please do the honorable thing and make the change in the title of the offending page, as earlier suggested, and then this mess can be cleared up. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar" Budfin 10:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Puppetry!?! Sorry for any confusion. I've replied here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Institute_of_National_Remembrance#Any__Piotru.C5.9B.27_puppets_here.3F and taken the liberty of correcting a (presumed) typographical error in your reply. I admire your contributions. ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 10:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Institute of National Remembrance On 27 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Institute of National Remembrance, 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. --howcheng {chat} 17:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Anon vandal If he returns, I will block him for disruption.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC) It's not going to be easy I'm afraid. The anon, who's using a dynamic IP number (see: User talk:87.187.167.90) has been vandalizing the List of Poles quite regularly. Just keep an eye on it like I do, that's all. --Poeticbent  talk  17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Revert warring Piotrus, you violated the 3RR in the IPN article. Times below are in GMT: 04:33, April 27, 2007 you reverted the tag placed by another editor 17:17, April 27, 2007 you reinserted the (irrelevant) information about the lustration laws in other countries (which has no relevance to IPN) 00:51, April 28, 2007 was a full revert 01:00, April 28, 2007 was a full revert as well, only 21 hours after the first one. Please self-revert. Until recently, I would have never contacted you in connection with this or considered posting this to 3RR board but I can't help but make a connection between your act of joining the #admins[7] that we used to criticized together and this rather unexpected showing up of a know IRC member bashing me at your ArbCom. I consider resorting to this tactic beyond limit. Anyway, irregardless of whether you want to explain the connection between these two events, please self-revert your 3RR violation. Thanks, --Irpen 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)