User talk:Leszek Jańczuk

; Archives
	Archive 2008;
	Archive 2009;
	Archive 2010;
	Archive 2011;

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

vn-2

This user talk page has been vandalized 2 times.

File:L Janczuk 2008 06 03.JPG

June 03 2008

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

Buster Seven Talk

Papyrus 50

I noticed you created initially this article and are a major contributator. Do you know the papertrail of this fragment and how Yale happened to obtain it?

Just happening by re P.Oxy. 85, but I can field this, Doug. The acquisition record is: "Purchased by Michael Ivanovich Rostovtzeff from Maurice Nahman in Paris, June 1933, with funds donated by Edward Stephen Harkness and Horatio McLeod Reynolds." The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Paris 1933. Let me know if any papertrail before this. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None, generally if you get to Nahman, that's the last stop. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Nahman purchase it from somebody?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(bringing the Nahman conversation back here where it belongs instead of my talk page)--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So as not to keep bothering Leszek. Nahman and Idris Bell were some of a group of people that bought papyri that had made it into the private market so that pieces that had been stolen from excavations wouldn't go unstudied. (That's the generous way of looking at the people whom they bought from--that they were persuaded by a bit of money to further knowledge.) The only way you find out where Nahmann got this piece is to try to track down his estate and hope there are records. I doubt there are, but who know? (22:23, 5 November 2011‎ Cardiffchestnut)

So it appears that the paper trail goes back no further than the nineteenth century - at best?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leszek didn't seemed to be bothered with the new Otium article I created. In fact he was very generious in his DYK help and I sent StuRat a barnstar for his work on the article. I love working with Leszek, User: StuRat, User: Wetman, User: Dr. Blofeld and other Wikipedia experts like these that I have worked with for many years. They don't seem to be bothered when I ask for their help and are very generous with their contributions for articles I created or information I need.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant bothering him with a conversation between the two of us on his talk page. Very few papyri have a paper trail going beyond the late 19th century because that's when they came out of the ground. But, then, one could say that a piece came out of the ground in any case and really be advancing a conspiracy of alphabetic proportions. I am, of course, kidding. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let Leszek Jańczuk reply to his own questions. He is quite capable of answering and needs no help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.Oxy. 85

I think that this is going to be a keep. Maybe we should think about getting a few more interested editors together and discussing how to proceed with the series. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I'd be happy to help out. My knowledge of Greek has faded away, but I don't mind doing a lot of minor cleanup and checking. Also, I've been thinking about a navigation template as well, although it's a subtle problem because of the number of documents.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otium

I am going to try to turn this article into a Good Article. Any suggestions or help?----Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it more concise. Does it need more "fine tuning"? Good Article possibility?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about getting Otium reassessed to possible B-Class and getting an assessment of "importance" on the WikiProjects?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mark in the DYK submission template that I prefer ALT1. Can you strike through the original hook? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that ALT1 be the first preference to choose as a hook line. Can I do that?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Otium#DYK submission template. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P. Oxy. category

Do you have any ideas on a better way to organize the category? Right now it's dumping them all into P, and sorting them by first digit. I'm thinking maybe groups of 50 or 100, either with subcategories or by piping them into the right sections?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm planning to rearrange the navigation template to be organized by volume as well. My feeling is that 159-207, the ones Grenfell and Hunt skim over in V.1, should be described briefly in a single article, maybe a list? Or is there newer work on these ones that could support individual articles?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USEP discussion

You may be interested in a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit error

I am afraid that one of your 100,000 edits is in error. In the Philip Traherne article you put in an incorrect link to the Thomas Traherne article. Different persons, same name. It seems that Thomas was a popular name among Trahernes. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

DYK for Nag Hammadi Codex XIII

On 19 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nag Hammadi Codex XIII, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Nag Hammadi Codex XIII is the only surviving copy of the Trimorphic Protennoia, an early Christian Gnostic text? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nag Hammadi Codex XIII.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Codex Coislinianus/GA1

Begun review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nag Hammadi Codex II

On 22 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nag Hammadi Codex II, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Nag Hammadi Codex II is the only complete manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nag Hammadi Codex II.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) 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.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Leszek Jańczuk for helping to promote Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Codex Coislinianus passed GA, good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxy 654

Did you notice in Oxy 654 that a very small edit on top of your impressive 100k would make this acceptable with making an exception? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654

On 26 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that P. Oxy. 654 and P. Oxy. 655 are two of only three Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) 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.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 655

On 26 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 655, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that P. Oxy. 654 and P. Oxy. 655 are two of only three Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) 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.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P. Oxy. numbering in category

I think it might be better if we pipe them to their actual document numbers, and only append 0's when we're in a volume that has both three digit numbers and 4 digit numbers. This way we don't have to calculate where an individual papyrus ought to be numbered in its subcategory, because we're just using the grenfell/hunt numbering. Is there something I didn't think of?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Lectionary 179

The article Lectionary 179 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lectionary 179 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New templates

Bonjour,

You may now use two templates : {{Nomen sacrum}} and {{Papyrus siglum}}, e. g.

{{Nomen sacrum|ΙΗΣ}} : ΙΗΣ ;
{{Papyrus siglum|13}} : Template:Papyrus siglum (without link) ;
{{Papyrus siglum|13|}} : Template:Papyrus siglum (with link).

Better than esoteric expressions !

Budelberger ( ) 23:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah/Oxyrhynchus Papyri 159 through 207

Maybe you can take a look at this and see if you think I'm on the right track for the rest of volume I? Is there more information about each that ought to be included? Do you have suggestions on how to cite the information more efficiently? I'll write an introductory paragraph, of course, or you're welcome to if you'd like. Other comments? When I'm done with it I'm thinking I'll make redirects to fill in all the redlinks in the template and as placeholders for future articles. Does that seem good to you? Also, what the heck is SB? It should be easy to figure out, but it seems to be assumed everywhere.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Lectionary 183

The article Lectionary 183 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lectionary 183 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12

The article Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Mazovia unexplained deletion

Would you mind to consult the discussion page before deleting parts of the article, please? --Rejedef (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hey? Howz things? Anything you want reviewed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate it and I'll review it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DId you nominate it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for correcting those errors at Billy Sunday. John Foxe (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit request for Codex Zacynthius

Hello, Leszek Jańczuk. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Codex Zacynthius at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Braincricket (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]