User talk:Piotrus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:38, 30 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]

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]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 28 May, 2007, a fact from the article Air Force of the Polish Army, 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.

--Smee 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skartabellat

"just google" is hardly a serious answer as far as peculiarities of the Polish history, unknown to the world, and even to the Poles themselves are concerned. I would say "just read" Henryk Samsonowicz's article on Polish skartabels. Or any book on Polish nobility that would clearly cover that topic :-). "De" in Polish surnames is not French. It's Latin. Just read any medieval or early modern sources on Polish nobility. There is plenty online. Try http://teki.bkpan.poznan.pl . Show me any Polish lord called "Voivod" :-). Wojewoda OK. But not "Voivod". However, in official Latin documents of the Polish state these dignitaries are constantly named "Palatinus" and their areas "Palatinatus". Also current Polish historians use "Wojewoda" and "Palatyn", or "Wojewodztwo" and "Palacja" as synonyms. Thanks for managing the page!

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, 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 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revert war at Vilna offensive

Alex, Piotrus, consider this. Both of you are administrators and you both should know better than revert warring, right ? --Lysy^talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Neighbourhoods mediation

Thank you for your comments, it seems that I have been directed to several pages but have not received any aid in my plight. If you could be so kind as to direct me to the proper resource for settling my dispute. However, the dispute at Regina Neighbourhoods involves the validity of statistics that I have proposed be inserted into the article. If you could either, mediate the dispute or ascertain the validity of my proposal or direct me in the proper direction, it would be greatly appreciated.--207.81.56.49 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I feel that the statistics meet all the requirements that I have been directed by yourself. They are crime statistics from the local police force and are therefore verifiable and primary sources. I also thank you for your direction to register but at this point, I fail to see the purpose due to the disputes over content at Regina Neighbourhoods. If this can be settled in a fair and equitable manner, I will register due to having confidence in Wikipedia . If they can not be dealt with in this manner, I see no reason to go through the hassle of registering, as I would be unable to contribute. Once again, thank you for your advice and hope that you may help me find a resolution to this issue.--207.81.56.49 22:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics questions

Piotrus, below is the thread I moved from the article's talk to yours since this is too far from the topic at hand. I would appreciate receiving finally a truthful answer. The original thread is moved unmoderated. --Irpen 06:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observer

I was asked by one of the parties in this article to view this article. So, please tell me what seems to be the major sticking point? Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the whoever asked you used IRC or whatever, I wonder? Anyway, your feedback would be welcome but it is impossible to summarize a sticking point in a few words. Please read the talk above and see the article's history with the revert war Piotrus waged during his own arbitration. --Irpen 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because IRC is the quickest way to get to me and I generally leave that open even if Firefox is closed. Anyways, I'll review the information and see if I can help yall out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believed Zscout370 would be an acceptable neutral party already familiar with parts of CE/EE history, I contacted him. Do you have a problem with me asking for a neutral party intput in our latest quagmire?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, while the lead image might not be an issue, but if I read this correctly, the image should be in the public domain in Poland, since it is 70 years since it was published. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Piotrus' question, the proper way to ask for a neutral input is article's RfC. I don't mind requesting Zscout to look individually, since I know him for a good guy but as a matter of principle I object to out of band communication on Wikipedia conflict related matters for the sake of transparency. There are very few incidents when out-of-band communication is warranted and those usually involve privacy issues, dangerous vandals or some sort of emergency. Content dispute is not an issue of this sort. Piotrus' using IRC to get a hand from David Gerard, otherwise non-interested in articles at all, who suddenlly came bashing at Piotrus' arbcom and later, of course by accident, happened to block another editor with whom Piotrus had a conflict, Piotrus' sending out emails aimed at derailing another RfA has become all too common and I happen to think that acting behind people's back is unethical. When I will be asking for Zachs' opinion about some article, I will do so at his talk. That said, I would welcome his non-involved opinion on the matter. --Irpen 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine Irpen; I have worked with you before and I hope we get similiar results as we did elsewhere. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your unprovable accusations of my misbehaviour are a sad violation of WP:NPA, but I think I am getting used to that. The fact is that I wanted Zach's opinion ASAP, since the sooner we would get neutral editors to mediate, the lesser personal attacks - or accusations of thereof - we would see. Bottom line is, there is no Wiki rule discouraging use of off-wiki communications, and I don't remember you complaining when the two of us were discussing some other editors face to face during last Wikimania (I am just sad that what looked like good understanding we have reached then seems now completly forgotten).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, about my "unprovable" accusations, your resorting to out of band makes them indeed unprovable except through circumstantial evidence, but it is strong enough. But let's just make it all easier for all of us.

Did you talk to David Gerard over IRC before his sudden appearance at your arbcom with a diff to an obscure message I left at another editor's talk asking him not to revert war with you and to stay out of your way? I am asking since DG never makes any of substance edits or does anything substantial content-wise, he never before interacted with me or that editor, he is at IRC 24/7 and this happened right after you asked for access to IRC? This is my line of circumstantial evidence. Please just say I am wrong
After hanging around at #en-admins did not you see a chatter there about Errabee's position on Fairuse and that's how you found out about this RfA?
Following that, did not you send emails to several users with a link to a several month-old diff edit made by Errabee?
Is there any connection between your IRC activity and the fact that DG soon blocked your content opponent for a month?

As for our talking in person, unlike your persistent refusal to answer questions asked to you repeatedly, I not only freely admit it, but I immediately made it know to the subjects of our conversations about that discussion. I find nothing shameful in that discussion and I can repeat in public everything I said in private at that or any other time. Can you do the same? --Irpen 05:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "there is no Wiki rule discouraging use of off-wiki communications" is unclear to you? You are trying to create a controversy where none should exist. To clear up your misuderstaning, let me illustrate with an example. How would you feel if I gave you a detailed list of questions about what you smoked or drank tonight, accompanied by a haughty lecture on how editing Wikipedia while not completely clear-minded is a bad thing. I think you would be outraged, and rightly so. I will of course not do that because 1. it is none of my business. 2. there is no Wikipedia guideline whatsover regulating what one does while editing. My own willingness to give a detailed discussion about my substance intake tonight would not make my point any stronger here. Balcer 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, what I drink or eat is unrelated to the editing, to canvassing people to vote to derail someone's RfA, to help in revert warring, to ask a known problematic admin to block your opponent and do so at the channel where the abuse is known to be rampant or to ask the very same admin to post something to ArbCom that would help, like a request for a thorough review of Irpen's editing pattern. (How did it go, btw?) As for lack of rule, I agree, but this is about ethics not rules. Ethics are not encoded in the legal codes, neither they can be encoded in policies. But let's see whether Piotrus will ignore the questions again. --Irpen 06:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I completly agree with Balcer, and I consider your inquisition a gross violation of both good faith assumption and normal right to privacy, since it matters so match to you I will give you the answers - even through, as Balcer points out, I am not obliged too. I'd be happy if you'd treat it as a token of good will, and decist from challenging my good faith in the future.

I mentioned my ArbCom on IRC channels several times asking for advice, this can be confirmed by many users, including some ArbCom members themselves. I received some helpful and public advise on technicalities, much more than through traditional ways (which is almost none). If I ask on advice on wiki, I may get it after days, if ever. When I ask for it in IRC it is likely I will get it in seconds. That David chose to offer his opinion, quite unfavourable of you, was of his own free will. Until that time I was not familiar of any bad blood between you and him. That said, I am afraid he is right: for many months now your behaviour towards me has been getting worse and worse, today's your claims of falsification are a prime example of that. Your apology would go long way towards proving DG wrong.
I found out about Vlad's blocking recently when I glanced at his talk page; I had no idea DG was blocking him but on that note I completly endorse that block; I certainly have not seen or participated in any IRC-related discussions regarding his block.
I found out about Errabee's arbcom by following contributions of some of our common friends - but I see nothing wrong if I were to learn about it on IRC (alas, I hadn't). As far as fair use stance goes I actually support him on that, and stated this publicly both on IRC and (somewhere...) in wiki space.
I think I was the first Polish editors to comment on Errabee's adminship, but I think it was Lysy who brought the link in question up on the voting page (interestingly, he voted in support). Please note I tend to chat to dozens of wiki editors interested in matters ranging from Poland to sociology, on and off wiki, via email, IMs, IRC and occasionally even face-to-face. There is no Wiki rule discouraging use of off-wiki communications, and what I talk about is private. I have my suspicions about what and with whom you and some other editors who tend to be critical of me talk about, up to and including my recent ArbCom, however I don't intend to pry into that, spy on you or challenge your right to discuss things in private. This is all I intend to say on that matter. EOT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 317: / Line 317: @@
 Balcer, what I drink or eat is unrelated to the editing, to canvassing people to vote to derail someone's RfA, to help in revert warring, to ask a known problematic admin to block your opponent and do so at the channel where the abuse is known to be rampant or to ask the very same admin to post something to ArbCom that would help, like a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=126669390#Statement_by_David_Gerard request for a thorough review of Irpen's editing pattern]. (How did it go, btw?) As for lack of rule, I agree, but this is about ''ethics'' not rules. Ethics are not encoded in the legal codes, neither they can be encoded in policies. But let's see whether Piotrus will ignore the questions again. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-----
+:While I completly agree with Balcer, and I consider your inquisition a gross violation of both good faith assumption and normal right to privacy, since it matters so match to you I will give you the answers - even through, as Balcer points out, I am not obliged too. I'd be happy if you'd treat it as a token of good will, and decist from challenging my good faith in the future.
+:*I mentioned my ArbCom on IRC channels several times asking for advice, this can be confirmed by many users, including some ArbCom members themselves. I received some helpful and public advise on technicalities, much more than through [[Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Piotrus|traditional ways]] (which is almost none). If I ask on advice on wiki, I may get it after days, if ever. When I ask for it in IRC it is likely I will get it in seconds. That David chose to offer his opinion, quite unfavourable of you, was of his own free will. Until that time I was not familiar of any bad blood between you and him. That said, I am afraid he is right: for many months now your behaviour towards me has been getting worse and worse, today's your claims of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APinsk_massacre&diff=134477887&oldid=134477399 falsification] are a prime example of that. Your apology would go long way towards proving DG wrong.
+:*I found out about Vlad's blocking recently when I glanced at his talk page; I had no idea DG was blocking him but on that note I completly endorse that block; I certainly have not seen or participated in any IRC-related discussions regarding his block.
+:*I found out about Errabee's arbcom by following contributions of some of our common friends - but I see nothing wrong if I were to learn about it on IRC (alas, I hadn't). As far as fair use stance goes I actually support him on that, and stated this publicly both on IRC and (somewhere...) in wiki space.
+:*I think I was the first Polish editors to comment on Errabee's adminship, but I think it was Lysy who brought the link in question up on the voting page (interestingly, he voted in support). Please note I tend to chat to dozens of wiki editors interested in matters ranging from Poland to sociology, on and off wiki, via email, IMs, IRC and occasionally even face-to-face. There is no Wiki rule discouraging use of off-wiki communications, and what I talk about is ''private''. I have my suspicions about what and with whom you and some other editors who tend to be critical of me talk about, up to and including my recent ArbCom, however I don't intend to pry into that, spy on you or challenge your right to discuss things in private. This is all I intend to say on that matter. EOT.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)