User talk:Piotrus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:23, 26 May 2007

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.

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)

style="position

Your use of HTML "style="position" (I think) is causing me some problems with the display of this page. — The Storm Surfer 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official name definition

Hello, I'd really appreciate it if you took a look at WP:NCGN and the issue of the official name. There's a huge problem in the Dokdo talk area about the concept of official name. Dokdo is claimed by Korea and Japan and they both have their own official names. (Dokdo and Takeshima). However, some users are saying because Korea has a few soldiers and is at present the 'occupant' of the island then that becomes the official name. I don't think this is in the spirt of the name convention regarding official names: In other words, if one country has a name and it doesn't exist much in English please use that. A simple change to say that there may be more than one official name in an undisputed territory would be helpful. I don't want to instigate the change myself as it would lead to charges of bias.

Many thanks.

Macgruder 11:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead sockpuppets

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful intervention.

I've been moved to a different hospital today and been able to edit at last using the staff nurses work station.

I'll e-mail you a proper thanks if I ever make it out of here ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 14:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kraków szopka

On 20 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kraków szopka, 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} 00:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Witold Leon Czartoryski.jpg

Hi, I saw you found a source for this image. Thanks. However it's not complete. Is there on that Polish page more information? The date when the picture was taken and/or published. The image is probably Public Domain but with just a link to the photo somewhere on the web, we can't be sure. Garion96 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, I will also look to see if I can find something. But If I am not successful I will tag it as having no source again in a couple of days or so. Garion96 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Public Domain rule in Poland? With 70 years usually is meant the death of the author/photographer. It is not that unlikely that that has not happened yet. {{PD-Poland}} doesn't work in this case unfortunately. Garion96 (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Polish-Ukrainian War - final stage.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alex Spade 12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

I have just answered at Image talk:Polish-Ukrainian and Polish-Soviet Wars early 1919.JPG. Alex Spade 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, 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 05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is exactly the problem

You've made this request on your RfAr:

It is my belief that M.K. should be warned to stop harassment of me and other editors (like Halibutt and Lysy) under a threat of a block, and put on probation from Poland-related articles. Majority of his positive contributions are in the field of Lithuanian architecture and history, unrelated to Poland, it would be a loss to see him go but his disruption of Poland-related articles needs to be put to an end. Some form of mentorship and adoption would be also highly advisable. Considering the neglible positivie content contributions coming from Dr. Dan at all, and vast amount of disruption, I feel that a probation from any Poland-related articles and particulary talk pages is highly advisable and the least strong solution ArbCom should utilize in regard to this editor. Finally, several users (M.K., Jadger, Dr. Dan, Irpen) should be cautioned that they are not neutral and reminded of how Wiki is supposed to work

This shows exactly where I find your communication with other editors to be problematic: threatening with sanctions. It is not up to you to suggest anything here. Let the ArbCom do their work, if you want any sanctions taken against other editors, you could always propose measures at the Workshop subpage, where people can respond to your suggestions directly, and arbitrators can then decide if sufficient support exists for those measures. Right now, this statement of yours just causes a very hostile environment, without anyone being able to do anything about it. I strongly urge you to withdraw this request from your RfAr, or move it to the Workshop subpage. Er rab ee 09:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop, you'll see a couple of proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies by non-ArbCom editors.

Your statement above contains many findings of fact and remedies, but you present them in such a form that it is practically impossible to discuss them individually. The first sentence should be split in a finding of fact (M.K. has harassed other editors (diff, diff, diff, diff)) and a general remedy (Harassment is forbidden and can be punished by a brief block for each infringement). The next sentences could be done in a similar manner: a finding of fact and coupled one or more remedies.

This approach enables people to discuss and dispute the findings of fact and the remedies separately, which can help structure the discussion. Er rab ee 12:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

What about History of Exploration in Tibet? I used a book but I am sure some web references can be found. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have tons of good new articles but many need referencing. Kumbum Monastery is another recent other. I have had many DYK's Uttara (film) was another article which never got done but I often don't have to time to propose it myself -I see it as bragging!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 19:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 22 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lublin-Brest Offensive, 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.

--Smee 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Władysław Orkan, 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.

--Smee 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Railroadtyccon3_screen2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Railroadtyccon3_screen2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 DYK Medal

		The 100 DYK Medal
		I, Smee, hereby award you with The 100 DYK Medal, for over 100 impressive contributions to Did you know? Thank you. Yours, Smee 03:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of Halibutt

Certainly I have, how else could I have come up with an average of 6 edits per day? Over 180 edits in April, more than 150 in May as of today. I admitted it was (much) less than he was used to. Maybe this qualifies as limited involvement, but certainly not as loss of an active editor, which I feel misrepresents the facts.

BTW, you still haven't removed your request (and optionally sort it out and move it into the Workshop area). M.K. has already made one proposed finding of fact (although it lacks diffs). Er rab ee 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a matter of interpretation. Halibutt has had periods before when he was even less active than he is now. And I've taken the worst month of 2007 to calculate the average. January amassed to 377 edits (12/day), February 286 (11/day), March over 245 (8/day), and May is up again (wrt April) with 7/day.

As for refactoring your statement: the point is that evidence has to be supported by facts. Your request/solution is your opinion on how to proceed, and cannot be evidence. You're quite right that ArbCom should make their own decision, but then I wonder why you've placed that request in the first place? Er rab ee 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how I should read this statement of yours on my talk page:

We have already fixed part of the problem: I am not aware of any conflicts along the lines Ghirla-Polish editors since the end of the previous year

Could you please elaborate on what has been fixed? If you mean that Ghirla has limited his involvement as well, I consider that as much a loss to Wikipedia as you consider Halibutt limiting his involvement. Er rab ee 08:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is very telling. Many people consider Halibutt to be as rude as you perceive Ghirla to be. Your answer would be comparable that they say that M.K. has fixed part of the problem, which would be just as inappropriate as your answer is. I'm beginning to doubt very much whether I should indeed stay out of your arbitration case, because this is really not acceptable. Er rab ee 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? How are *we* baiting Ghirla to change his behaviour? No, I definitely feel you've crossed the line here big time. Er rab ee 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been invited to comment on this discussion - and since Halibutt is one of the very few Eastern European editors who's rubbed me the wrong way I'm probably the right person to say this: I can read Piotrus's comments on this topic at face value and in good faith. This doesn't look like a deliberate attempt to bait anyone. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: question

I have to agree with said editor that you and the other should start proposing remedies, however, I don't see a pressing need to remove that section from the evidence. The format he suggested of proposed remedies should be along these lines name the editor in question and state the sanction you think should occur, provide a brief explanation of why this remedy is a good plan, provide two to four diffs if possible exemplifying the behavior in question, and then wrap up with a link to the relevant evidence section, which should go into more detail/provide some more diffs.

For an example of how this works, see the remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies. The arbitrators approved of remedies along those lines which they found on the workshop page; then they voted on them at proposed decision; and then the closing clerk moved them to the main arbitration page (sometimes they keep the diffs and evidence links in the final remedies, sometimes they drop them; in the case I linked, they dropped them, but it is still a good idea to include them on the workshop pages.) Picaroon (Talk) 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Polish copyright discussion

At commons. What do you think? Also: here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note: I don't usually follow replies on other user talk pages; in the future note if you want me to be aware of a reply, please copy it to my talk page. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grr...I forgot, sorry. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 238: / Line 238: @@
 :::Your answer is very telling. Many people consider Halibutt to be as rude as you perceive Ghirla to be. Your answer would be comparable that they say that M.K. has fixed part of the problem, which would be just as inappropriate as your answer is. I'm beginning to doubt very much whether I should indeed stay out of your arbitration case, because this is really not acceptable. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]][[User:Errabee|ee]] 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 ::::Excuse me? How are *we* baiting Ghirla to change his behaviour? No, I definitely feel you've crossed the line here big time. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]][[User:Errabee|ee]] 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
+----
+I've been invited to comment on this discussion - and since Halibutt is one of the very few Eastern European editors who's rubbed me the wrong way I'm probably the right person to say this: I can read Piotrus's comments on this topic at face value and in good faith.  This doesn't look like a deliberate attempt to bait anyone. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 == Re: question ==