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 Grounds for divorce so with that link you showed me their is stuff from fault section that needs to be changed as well? --Nas132 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Lines 92 and 93 are in the WP:DIFF link. Those are not my section and I want to tell the other group member that those sentences need restructured if thats the case. Since lines 92 and 93 are shown do they needed restructured? Also with lines 103 down since they are shown does that mean they need changed as well? those are links and I was not sure what they would need changed for.--Nas132 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I made more changes. Can you please check my sections? Then I will post a comment on Nikimaries talk page because she informed me that she does not want me to post on her page until I made all corrections. --Nas132 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC) All my page are good/ Except in the paragraph starting with However, the page number is actually 7. I will have to change that when I can get in touch with Natalie. Is that reference number[9]? because that not my paragraph. Oh! the divorce for dummies book is for paragraph state acceptance I don't know what happened but I can't find the page that I used so skip that and I will get back to it when I can get the book again and find whats going on with that.--Nas132 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The divorce for dummies is actually page 16--Nas132 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your help! I checked the references and all my information is on the page referenced. Natalie helped me fix the page number for divorce for dummies. Page 7. The information starts under the blue box on page 7.--Nas132 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC) No problem. I will use the reference links from now on. I made more changes. I will talk to you after class. Thanks for your help. --Nas132 (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Re: Nifty tool Thanks for the heads-up! I've been unwell the past few days, but will get back to checking the articles as soon as I can. Bejinhan talks 03:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 24 October 2011 From the editors: A call for contributors Opinion essay: There is a deadline Interview: Contracting for the Foundation In the news: Are Wikipedians reluctant journalists?; Wikipedia:The Musical WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos Featured content: The best of the week Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC) New Page Patrol survey New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Piotrus! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Grounds for divorce Here is a sentence that I changed from the pros and cons section: 3) Dividing up the couples property such as the house, pertinent valuables, debts, and alimony have become unfair through a no-fault divorce--Nas132 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC) W sprawie "Ekstraklasa venues" Witam. Zauważyłem, że jest problem z artykułem "Ekstraklasa venues" Nie znam się zbyt dobrze na tych socjalistyczny-biurokratycznych zasadach wikipedii, ale "Ekstraklasa Venues" miała być tylko tabelką rozwijaną pod artykułami (template) a nie artykułem. Przez pomyłkę wyszło inaczej. "Ekstraklasa venues" jako artykuł jest oczywiście do natychmiastowego usunięcia I teraz najważniejsze: Czy mam rozumieć, że ktoś pobił jeden z licznych rekordów głupoty i uznał każdy artykuł (np: o Dialog Arenie, Stadionie Legii itd)do którego został podłączony ten template jako kopię artykułu "Ekstraklasa venues"?? Artykuły te mają czerwoną ramkę z informacją że są zakwalifikowane z tegoż powodu do szybkiego usunięcia. Zauważyłem, ze edytowałeś coś przy "Ekstraklasa venues" wiec zapewne wiesz o co chodzi. Czy mógłbyś w związku z tym usunąć ARTYKUŁ (nie template) "Ekstraklasa venues" i doprowadzić do tego by artykuły zakwalifikowane do rzekomego usunięcia nie zostały bezmyślnie usunięte? Z góry dzięki za wyjaśnienie tej sytuacji i wiadomość zwrotną Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.156.247 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Naprawione przez innych. Zapraszam do logowania sie, anonimowi trudno zostawic odpowiedz. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Family Honor-Editing references I added all page numbers etc for all references except for the website reference for Roman family law. Honestly, it took a long time just to find the author's name, I have no clue when he might have written the article. I don't want to make up a date and lie. If other Wikipedians don't like it that it doesn't have a date, I can delete the reference along with the sentence it refers to. Thanks...Esery (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC) AE thread and followup You asked here whether your participation in that AE discussion was acceptable, so let me answer this: no, in my view it is not, and you were in fact on the list of people I was considering for further follow-up sanctions. Your interaction ban comes with an exception regarding "necessary dispute resolution". But that exception has an understood "mind-your-own-business" written into it: participation in dispute resolution, including admin noticeboard discussions and the like, is never "necessary" for a user who is not himself an originating party of the dispute that is being discussed. What we had here was a conflict originating between Russavia and Vecrumba. If that conflict involved a breach of a restriction on the part of Russavia, it was up to Vecrumba, and nobody else, to bring the issue to the attention of the admins. No other editor who is under an interaction ban with either of the originating parties had any business being there. This is the one area where interaction bans actually do make sense, and ought to be enforced. We don't want you people turning up at the noticeboards in support of each other time and time again. Especially in this case, where collusion between this same set of people including you on noticeboard discussions was a central part of the original problem that led to the sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Grounds for divorce Thank you for looking over that paragraph. I just wrote Nikkimaria. I will keep you posted.--Nas132 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC) RE: Talk:Collaborative fiction/GA1 Hey, just wanted to say thank you for your review at Talk:Collaborative fiction/GA1, it's great to get some solid feedback on the article with concrete suggestions. Your review will become a really big part of how the article changes over the next little while :) thank you so much :), by the way, would it be possible to come back to you in a little while after changes have been made to see if your original concerns have been satisfied? That way I could feel bit more confident about putting it forward again? AdamCaputo (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Wow! I thought that the result was a straight fail... and was thinking a timescale of a couple of months... to a large extent I'm feeling my way forward uncertainly - but I'll block out some time this week and see what I can come up with. Thank you! AdamCaputo (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC) family honor - modifying content On the dky discussion page Did_you_know_nominations/Family_honor it is indicated that there is still some content that needs to be cleaned/re-worded/modified. I started with the first 2 paragraphs in the history section. I was wondering what tools I can use to search for copy/vio content in the other sections to save me some time (other than google-ing it)? I don't know whether each sentence needs to be rewritten or only two, and it takes a good chunk of time to read/search the references that I am not familiar with. Thanks!!! Esery (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC) GA progress at Talk:Birth control movement in the United States/GA1 I believe I have addressed all the issues in Talk:Birth control movement in the United States/GA1 ... except for one minor question about linking city names. Could you please take another look and see if the article meets the requirements? --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you! grounds for divorce Thank you for bringing that to my attention. --Nas132 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Tadeusz Sawicz The nom is up. We await the verdict. Great work on expanding the article.-Kiwipat (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Question about sources for grounds for divorce Nikkimaria said that she does not have access to some sources used on our page. This is her comment: No, 4 I can read. I don't have 1, 3 (which is the same as 8, 10, 12, 13), 11 or 14-17. Can you help me understand this. Thanks,--Nas132 (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Sounds good. I just didn't know if I was missing something because she should be able to click on the book link and see the information. I don't understand why she wouldn't be able to do that. I will ask her.--Nas132 (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Since Nikkimaria can't view the rest of our page would you mind reviewing it and updating her? I suggested if it's ok with the both of you to review the page since she does not have access, and she said that would be fine.--Nas132 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)