User talk:Piotrus

You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.

"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! Oh, Template:Talkback is ok. 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.

Archive

Talk archives:

Reasons for my raising wikistress: Some general observations on Wikipedia governance being broken and good editors trampled by the system Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :) I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms. Current RfAdminship RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online All my email accounts have been disabled. All my email accounts have been disabled that I used to connect to Wikipedia. I am awaitng google's assistance. For now please be warned that if anything will be posted be my that seems strange I won't be me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMoloboaccount (talk • contribs) Topory Hi, could you contact User:Topory on the Polish Wikipedia and ask them to clarify the source of this image? At the moment it simply says pl.wiki, although I presume Topory took the image personally. If Topory could also remove the watermark that would be useful, but if not someone at the graphics lab here should be able to do the job. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) You email Hi Piotrus. I got your email, and I've replied to your question at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision here. Regards, Paul August ☎ 01:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Practical advice Hi Piotrus. I think it is time to stop the negotiations over remedies in the EEML case. The arbitrators seem to have hardened in their views, and I do not think further discussion will change anything. Instead, I recommend that you participate in whatever way you can that is constructive. If you are allowed to write articles in userspace, and it is allowable, I will be glad to copy them to article space for you. Meanwhile, do good work, stay out of conflict, and after some time you can lodge an appeal. The ArbCom composition will change soon. Given a little time and some fresh faces, you might get a more sympathetic hearing. Jehochman Talk 15:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Educational GARs Hi Piotrus, I am currently reviewing four of "your" Educational GARs. Three look quite strong GA candidates, and I hope that one (at least) will become a GA by the end of the weekend. I regard Proto-globalization as a strong candidate and I'm almost half way through it. However, I'm beginning to suspect that some of the Hostilities, War, and Imperialism section is going to be a Copyright Violation. It is cited, but I think that its a copy and paste job, rather than a summary. The subsection Thirty Years' War appears to be so (see Talk:Proto-globalization/GA1). I could be wrong, but it is going to take time to sort out. Pyrotec (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I shalln't fail any of these four before the deadline (I've only failed 18 in 185 WP:GANs, so I have wish to add to the failures), but it would be nice to award a GA before then. You might even get a WP:FAC. Pyrotec (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC) One GA issued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comment. I don't consider that my decision was "wrong"; I sometimes get small things wrong (grammar for instance is not a particular strong point compared with some other reviewers that I could name, but won't) and someone comes along afterwards and does a correction, and I spot it immediately. It seems to fit in well enough and I would not have noticed it, without it being brought to my attention. If someone feels strong enough they can raise it at WP:GAN; that was my 223rd completed GAN/GAR review. I've had abuse, but nothing overturned yet. Pyrotec (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC) First World - GA status Hi, just wanted to update you that we have GA status now. Rgg6 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Does that mean we are done with Wikipedia, i.e. we do not need to work on our article anymore? (just clarifying) Rgg6 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Vatican banner I'm adding the Vatican/Microstates banner to the articles as they appear in the various relevant categories. So far, the two articles you mentioned haven't shown up in any of the categories I've been through. But, yeah, articles on the foreign relations of any country/similar generally do fall within the scope of all the relevant parties. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Adding Picture Here [1] is the picture we'd like to use in our decline section, but the picture clearly has a copyright. Can we still use it somehow? --Gxlarson (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC) This [2] one would work too, but I don't know what the copyright deal is. --Gxlarson (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image (File:Czerwone gitary to wlasnie my.JPG) ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Czerwone gitary to wlasnie my.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Martial law in Poland Hello, I translated some bits and pieces of Jaruzelski's text. I mostly used the text published in Estonian (that had in turn been translated from Russian) so if you happen to have some time, please take a look at the translation to revise it. PS. I'd be glad if anyone would broaden the article on Albin Siwak, recently created by me. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC) NORDPOL Sure. There are two major duplicating articles - Operation Joint Endeavor and IFOR - and several very small stubs - Operation Resolute (Balkans), the NORDPOL Brigade, and the Nordic Support Group which as a bunch of disconnected articles, don't give much context to the subject of the NATO effort in 95-96 in Yugoslavia. As one article at IFOR there is much better context. If any of the three smaller ones were anything more than two-sentence unreferenced stubs, I would leave them. But they're not. Anyone can come along at any time and recreate the articles from redirects when they've got a good amount of sourced material. But with the material there is, it's better at one place. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Addendum: see you established this stub. If all the Polish-language material including references and infobox etc had been translated, I wouldn't even have thought of merging it. However I don't know how big the pl:wiki article was when you did the translation. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Re: Do you have an opinion On the issues discussed here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC) As I indicated to Offliner above, I hope to vote shortly, and I expect that I may well make alternative proposals. However, my main concerns are that the findings of fact could go into more detail as to the actual on-wiki actions relevant to this case, and that some parties whom in my view ought to have been addressed by findings of fact have not been yet. If I propose alternative remedies they will likely be more extensive ones. --bainer (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC) There is so much email about this case that I've decided to not even try to bring myself up to speed. It's close to closure, and I am not participating. Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Good article status and extra credit Piotr, We finally got good article status! Yeah! I was just wondering if you could outline what exactly counts for extra credit points with wikipedia. Do we have to start a completely new article or improve upon others? Thanks! Kmm131 (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Copyright problems; just a courtesy heads up and a request for help :) Hi, Piotrus. :) You seem to be mentoring User:ShaqSmith, who I gather is a student of some kind? I'm afraid that he seems to have pasted copyrighted content into the article Food power. I've identified extensive taking from several sources, and additional review is going to be necessary to be sure that other issues haven't been introduced. I've left him the standard template for such situations, but since you seem to have a working relationship wondered if you could help clarify Wikipedia's copyright policies for him if necessary. Having myself worked with students, I know that copyright issues are not always at all clear to them. I don't want to discourage him, but unfortunately had to blank the article pending further investigation. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I see we were editing across each other. :) I'll be happy to take a look. I'm near the end of my wikipedia day, but will see what I can find as soon as possible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Sure. As soon as I can figure out which sections he's edited, I will limit the blanking to those. I'll suggest rewriting them in the linked temporary space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, I just found that. :/ You have another student, too, who doesn't seem to understand how to use source material. Compare [3] with [4] and [5]. Those are very closely paraphrased. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I'll take a look at that shortly, currently I am documenting copyvios of User:ShaqSmith; found two more sources copyvioed ([6] and parts of Wallenstain). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I believe we are finding some of the same stuff. I've just found a bit more from Wallensteen ([7]). I am, however, right now running very late. I will try to get a bit more done on this in a couple of hours, so we can at least blank only the problematic portions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC) It appears that all that was added by that user is a copyvio, but the works of others (ex. I just spend a while comparing this para with the source) seems fine. So I think the solution is to remove all that was added by him; then we can remove the copyvio tag and let the students go back to work. Would you concur? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Well, no, because as I pointed out above text introduced by User:Nikzen has also introduced some problems. Again, compare [8] with [9] and [10]. Those are very closely paraphrased. The phrase "Economic commodities are, however, necessary to maintain life and give life a material form. Thus, by denying access to food, life can be threatened" in the source certainly seems too close to me to the article's "Since economic commodities are necessary to maintain life and give life a material form, by denying access to food, life is threatened." This edit also incorporates content from this, this and this. Currently, the section on Policy seems clear. I've found issues in every section above it. The Conditions section seems clear, too. Copyvios come back into it below that. It might be best to have your students work on the article in the linked temporary space. I believe at this point that Dorothy R Smith (talk · contribs) has contributed only clean content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I'm out of time for today, but I have made it down through the Employment section. Of course, we've already identified some material from below that, but I haven't checked all of the sections. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC) ←Okay. In the United States section, there are multiple hits on this source, introduced here. The punishment approach section also has multiple hits: [11] and [12]. (ETA: This source may be public domain, but without access to it, I can't tell. It was published by US Congress in 1984, but before that in 1978 in volume 14 of the International food politics publication by Vilho Harle.) The Food Aid & Food Power section infringes on Donaher: [13]. The section on Europe infringes. See, for example, [14], [15],[16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Okay, I believe the sections on Africa & the Sudan are clean. After I wrap here, I'll go expose the sections that I believe are clear. A good bit of this article is corrupt. I've advised ShaqSmith to rewrite content in the supplied temp space. He had requested specifics on what needs to be revised, but I'm afraid (and I know you understand) that these are not available. There is extensive evidence of copying out of policy here, and we can't presume that any of the text he contributed is clear of copyright concerns, given that these sources are subscription based or viewable in "snippet" at google books. Some of this text was also introduced by User:Nikzen. I don't believe that he (or she) has contributed quite so much to the copyright problem here, but there is out of process copying from him (or her), nevertheless. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Food power Hello, Piotrus. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Origins of Term "Pax Mongolica" Hello Piotr. Thanks for the information about the origins and first occurrences of the term "Pax Mongolica & Tatarica". We'd love to incorporate this into the article, but would it be out of accordance with the original research policy? Also, would citing GBooks be credible (because it doesn't provide the actual page where the term occurs)? Regardless, thanks a lot for the links. --Gxlarson (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Due dates I'm doing family stuff for thanksgiving, so what are the due dates? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC) DYK for Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade On November 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Congratulations to us! I'm taking credit of this too . — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Economy of Pittsburgh, copyright problems Hi. I'm sorry, but Economy of Pittsburgh has problems, too. :( I've identified major issues in the first section and further down. I haven't yet identified who placed the content--if it was all the same individual--but I'm off to evaluate now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Okay. I've identified one source of problems here, with text introduced by User:Jpd26. Here, with User:Rach3191, there seems to have been a misunderstanding. S/he put quotation marks around the text, which suggests that s/he might have believed such extensive use of copyrighted text is okay as long as you indicate that it is copied. Clearly, this would suggest no clear idea of how much change is required to create a new, copyrightable text, since s/he removed the quotation marks around that material after removing some of the text and placing other text in parentheses further down. I do not know yet if problems are limited to what I've found or to contribs by these two. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Copying the content to the subpage is probably a good idea, but we're not supposed to publish the material there, either. Do you think that your students would be able to work on it behind the template there? Or trusted to replace the template between sessions of working? My big concern at this point is that they not create derivative works, which can happen if they try to revise line by line. As I know you know, revising copyright problems can be very tricky for people who aren't completely familiar with how to handle sources. I can't imagine there was intentional intellectual property theft here, particularly with edits like Rach3191's. :/ Seems well-intentioned to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Well, often "sofixit" with copyvios means "so delete it", because we don't have the manpower working on copyrights to rewrite content. Removing the copyvios is imperative, and in addition to the regular couple of dozen copyvios we deal with every day, we've got literally thousands of articles to go through at WP:CCI. The CP process works to give contributors a chance to fix the article, but if they don't (and often they don't), frequently the content is selectively deleted and the last clean version (if there is one) restored after the seven day listing period. If there's no clean version, we frequently lose the article altogether. While you may have noticed that the top of my user talk page advertises continually for WP:Copyclean, we just really haven't attracted that many people who have time and interest in rewriting this text. I want to be clear that I understand what you're proposing here. I haven't finished reviewing this one, but have adjusted the template at Food power. Do you propose that I simply remove the blanked content from the article, leaving the presumptive clear? If so, is it your idea that the students would work on new content in the article space? We would need somebody to verify that their revisions don't create derivative works. We already know they have issues with copyright. As for identifying the individual, I typically try not to highlight that to reduce embarrassment, but I can see the value in situations such as this. Obviously, when a problem is first discovered, it can take considerable time to verify that the rest of the content is clear. I could not just blank the sections in which I've located issues, for instance, before I've verified that the contributor (or contributors, in both of these cases) have not violated other copyrights as well. Going through an article's history can be very time consuming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry to butt in here, I'm one of the copyvio cleanup crew and have MRG's talk page watchlisted. I don't know how practical or feasible this is, but I for one would be extremely interested to get some feedback from your charges on what their reactions were when they were first confronted with the fact that their contributions were in violation of our copyright policy. What was their line of thought / reasoning when they added the material? Did they understand the concerns raised? How did they come to terms with them? How did they integrate notions like derivative works or WP:Close paraphrasing? How did that affect their rewrites, and their subsequent contributions? What proportion among them believes in good faith that they did nothing wrong? This kind of insight could be invaluable to us to help us re-think how we communicate our policies and the related guidelines, and I think we'd all love to hear these stories, if collecting them were doable. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I'll just note here (redundantly, since I did so as well at my talk page) that I'm only aware of one other issue in the list at my talk page, and it's already been overwritten with clean content. I think that the rest are free at least of major concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Today's Class Hello Piotr, I'm very sorry, but I misread the syllabus and missed class today. What can I do as far as the wikipedia updates we went over? Thanks, Chazz Chazz Aden (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) today Ok, thanks a lot Chazz Aden (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC) 02:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009 Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24 Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Additional problems Sociology of health and illness has problems as well. I've only tagged the section I know to be problematic, but there may be other problems. I will definitely not have time to do full text review of this myself, as it can take quite a while. :/ I've notified at User talk:T.starr.green. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC) First World has problems, too. :( Again, I've only tagged the one section, but there may be more. Some of the text was added here. Some was added here. I've left notice at User talk:JFA7. I'm afraid that I really don't have time to do an in-depth search of the text here to be sure that there aren't additional problems. I hope that MLauba will be able to help with that, but I'm already pushing it by editing now. :) I'm out of here in about an hour, and I'm not done packing. Bad timing. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC) No, I wish I could but I just can't do it in the time I have left. :( It's a bit time-consuming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Hi. I'm glad you've found some additional issues. I'll be happy to help review for more, but it will probably be Sunday before I'm able to do so, as I won't be back to my computer until then. I don't expect to be able to get online often or for long while traveling. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Władysław Odonic Hi Piotrus, I just finished the translation of Duke Władysław Odonic from Polish to English. Please check it out and let me know your opinion. Thanks!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC) hey Piotr I fixed the line u told me to fix. I dont understand how and where all of my information went. None of my sources are cited anymore and i think thats why i got that copyright complaint. Thanks John EAster (Jeaster89 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)) RE: Copyright Piotr - I am a bit confused. Does my entire section on outsourcing need to be re-written or can I just place the text in quotations marks to show it was directly taken from another article? Your help would be appreciated! JFA7 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC) DYK nomination of Puławy Legion Hello! Your submission of Puławy Legion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! MuZemike 03:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Polukrbat Lithuanians contribute a platoon to the battalion, thats why they were included in the infobox. Ceriy (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Can't find the e-mail Checked my archives as well, and they just aren't there. Shall we begin again? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Redlinks If you are going to restore redlinks to a list,[21] please also include a source? Just saying that they have an article on a different language Wikipedia is not sufficient. Thanks, --Elonka 02:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC) DYK for Puławy Legion On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Puławy Legion, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Im so confused I don't know what happend. the only thing i tried to do was to fix the copywrite problems. And the next thing i know our article is missing alot of stuff. and i thought someone else did that. I just need to know how to refix it. (Jeaster89 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)) Im so confused I don't know what happend. the only thing i tried to do was to fix the copywrite problems. And the next thing i know our article is missing alot of stuff. and i thought someone else did that. I just need to know how to refix it. (Jeaster89 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC))