User talk:Piotrus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:10, 2 September 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 18. 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.

Cracow

Likewise, for the both of you! This behaviour will be reported if it starts or continues. Those article were moved undiscussed by the both of you (AS and Piotr) undiscussed and with shady or insufficient reasoning to do so. Charles 22:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is inappropriate to unilaterally rename historical articles to Polish names given: a) they have English names and b) this is English Wikipedia. Polish Wikipedia is that way. I am not over there changing Kanada to Canada, which is the native form. Cracow is also the form which most English editors said they have recognized on various votes. Charles 22:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are some piece of work Piotrus. First, twisting around words, second, twisting around evidence. The article is about the HISTORICAL ENTITY and you abused your administrative powers and showed your bias by moving it back. It is NOT about the article "Krakow". Charles 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to an RFC on this. Charles 06:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you honestly and truly need to acknowledge things like this, on the talk page (which you seem to be avoiding) before you initiate problems by changing articles around to forms that have little or no support in scholarly literature:

I don't see a consensus or a vote to keep it at Krakow, so I made a bold move and changed it to Cracow, which was backed up with evidence from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I see no rationale for this move and for others in the history where a reversal of a well-intentioned editor's move goes without so much as an edit summary. I have always tried to assume good faith, but I am finding it to be increasingly difficult. I do not think, Piotrus, that you are showing NPOV. I had faith that you would turn a better leaf and work toward a better English Wikipedia and made note of such after you came to talk to me on my talk page. I have been silently been observing various shenanigans with regard to English/native naming and I found it to be an incredible affront to my intelligence to be told to have the Krakow article moved first before moving anything else. Absolutely unreal. Charles 06:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Increasingly does not mean overwhelmingly. Indeed, the EB uses "Republic of Cracow" and that name is all but discounted for the sake of the location of the article on the current city. Unbelievable. I have only come into seeing Krakow recently in the article on Wikipedia, never before in any text or manuscript that I have read. Charles 06:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And yes, Piotrus, I am drawing your attention to something you did in the past because you have not learnt from it. I can be fully certain now that you have read it. An answer would be much appreciated. Charles 18:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to acknowledge one's faults in an attempt to even better one's self as an editor and an administrator is a very grievous error. The fact that you acknowledge what I said by replying, but reply so begrudgingly and with very vague things to say, shows that there is still an issue with you being an administrator. You have learnt little, if nothing, from the events aforementioned which only now seem as if you were only paying lip service to all who gave you a chance to better yourself. The fact that I came upon that article and was able to recognize that something was not right is my contribution to Wikipedia. Your disparaging demeanour and the way you interact with those who oppose you overshadows the merits you claim for yourself and others (of whom this discussion has little to do with). That will follow you around, Piotrus. Everyone knows you for it. You cannot say that the EB is wrong on this matter and that you are right. Charles 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you keep on falling back on the use of Cracrow/Krakow in terms of modern usage (which is the modern city). The fact is we are not talking about today, we are talking about the historical entity. I urge you to read the naming conventions on historical entities. This is not Cracow vs Kraków, this is Free City of Cracow vs Free City of Kraków. Now, which is used more in scholarly literature? I urge you to comment on the evidence on the talk page as PMAnderson has gently asked. Refusal to comment on it or ignoring it is well, ignorant. It is a very weak argument on your part. Charles 19:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am not disputing RM or anything, I am disputing the editing and the practises that are going on. That is the issue I have. This is a civility issue and it hinges on manipulation of existing conventions to suit an acknowledged POV. Also, WP:OWN frowns on telling other editors they have little to stand on for not dedication more time to editing certain articles. Charles 19:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK (24 August)

Did you know? was updated. On 24 August, 2007, a fact from the article Jakub Karol Parnas, which you recently nominated, was 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.

Free City

Congratulations on the above. Would you comment again on the Cracow disaster (do excuse my Anglicism), and see if you can get these frantic national champions to lay off. I mean it; if I didn't like one of them and regard another as a newbie, I would have reported the lot of them to WP:AE already. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, which one am I? /:) Charles 22:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be telling, wouldn't it? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed, Piotrus; I do not see how your !vote is compatible with WP:NCGN. I would respect, and possibly be persuaded by, an argument for Krakow, which is indeed becoming more common; I would welcome more evidence; but your reasoning endorses WP:OWN. (I'm not sure that it is factually correct either, but to enquire into that would give the argument more weight than it deserves.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. How is this the name of WP:NCGN? for that matter, what modern scholarship? Krakow may be, but not (in this context) Kraków. Please set Matthead a good example, and argue from the facts, not justified annoyance with him. I think his latest stunt, of dragging in Auschwitz, is a violation of the ArbCom decree; but PoeticBent really is just as bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reply because I happen to be on; let me know if you want to walk away. I wrote you only because I would like to see what your analysis is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Please note that I am not discussing, and do not intend to discuss unless there is a complete change of sentiment, the name of Kraków itself.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Thank you for your comment, but because of sensitivity to Wikipedia's rules on COI, I have not made any edits to certain family articles for over a year now, and it is probably best if I continue that practice. However, if you would like to make any changes, please feel free. :) --El on ka 04:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free City

Certainly, if you cannot keep your temper, you should not; I had hoped you might have some influence on PoeticBent. However, I hope the RM is not inundated by WP:ILIKEIT votes like Talk:Wilhelmstraße has been — WP:IDONTLIKEIT would be worse, but there was a time when the two would balance and leave room for rational consideration of the issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 25 August, 2007, a fact from the article Kuryer Polski, which you recently nominated, was 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.

--Carabinieri 16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Directory

PreTender submitted eve-wiki to the CCP fansite list months ago and I've tried again and also on the Open Directory project. Can you help?
Leave me a message at eve-wiki.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alatari (talk • contribs) 04:54, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Boleslaus Goral

Did you know? was updated. On 26 August, 2007, a fact from the article Boleslaus Goral, which you recently nominated, was 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.

--Nice catch :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 26 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish Resettlement Corps, 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.

--Carabinieri 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of World War II casualties

The article World War II casualties you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:World War II casualties for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. Chrisfow 12:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	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 06:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the Free City

Piotrus, I written a number questions for you[1] at the article talk page. I feel it would be beneficial to the discussion if they were answered and it might provide credibility or support for your choice of the article name. Charles 17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Hi, I just wanted to say that I was sorry your RFA on Commons failed. You have given a tremendous amount of good to this project. Way more then anyone else that I have seen. I am personally staying out of politics here, as I have not seen anything that I am very impressed with. Just the same people making all the decisions, while spewing their judgmental crap. - Epousesquecido 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prośba o tłumaczenie: WP:ASSESS na język polski

Witam.
Zapewne mój login i wkład nic nie mówią, ale jestem z pl.wiki i przygotowuję po cichu pewną pracę/raport. Mam zamiar przeanalizować w niej system oceny artykułów i możliwe rozwiązania, także przykłady z innej wiki. W związku z tym zwracam się z serdeczną prośbą o tłumaczenie tutejszego systemu oceny. Czy jest na to szansa? Pytam, gdyż rozumiem problemy czasowe. Najpóźniej potrzebuję mieć tekst ok. 15 września, gdyż muszę go jeszcze przeanalizować. Zwracam się jednak ze swoją prośbą tu, gdyż najlepiej przetłumaczy tekst człowiek, który się na tym zna. W dodatku mam pytanie o wersjach tego systemu dla różnych Wikiprojektów, bo coś takiego też zauważyłem.
Mam nadzieję, że ten tekst nie będzie wyrzucony za użycie języka polskiego... Jednak w języku angielskim nie potrafiłbym jeszcze opisać sytuacji.

Matyt 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dziękuję za odpowiedź. Niestety, chyba muszę wystosować tutaj kolejną prośbę: tym razem o umieszczenie tej pierwszej w Portalu:Polska. Powody:

Mam niestety mnóstwo zajęć (sytuacja ta się nie zmieni prawdopodobnie do 7 września. A później mało czasu i nauka.
Nie potrafię szybko znaleźć odpowiedniego miejsca do umieszczenia omawianej prośby.
(Dosyć ważne:) Chciałbym uniknąć polskiej dyskusji na ten temat.

Przepraszam za poszerzanie problemu. Matyt 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Pilecki powazki.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Pilecki powazki.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pl:Prokuratura Krajowa

Witaj. Wedle tej strony (MSWiA) jest to State Public Prosecutor's Office. Możesz mi wskazac jakiś przykład, który świadczy że jest inaczej? Pozdrawiam. OldEnt ^§ 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skoro mówisz, że tłumacz przysięgły mówi, że jest tak jak mówi... :') to ja wierzę. Poszukam może jeszcze. Pozdrawiam. OldEnt ^§ 19:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zastanawiam się, czy nie wysłac listu do Prokuratury Krajowej z zapytaniem odnośnie tego. I tak muszę jeszcze skopletowac listę Prokuratorów Krajowych (jest niekompletna). OldEnt ^§ 19:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narutowicz

I'm not trying to convince the Lithuanian ultras to my POV. I'm trying to convince them to find a single source to support theirs.
There's no point in creating any longer article on Wikipedia. If the Lithuanians let the article live long enough for us to finish, there'll always be Dan and other trolls.//Halibu tt 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 254: / Line 254: @@
 :Skoro mówisz, że tłumacz przysięgły mówi, że jest tak jak mówi... :') to ja wierzę. Poszukam może jeszcze. Pozdrawiam. [[User:Grzegorz Dąbrowski|OldEnt]] <sup>[[User_talk:Grzegorz Dąbrowski|§]]</sup> 19:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 ::Zastanawiam się, czy nie wysłac listu do Prokuratury Krajowej z zapytaniem odnośnie tego. I tak muszę jeszcze skopletowac listę Prokuratorów Krajowych (jest niekompletna). [[User:Grzegorz Dąbrowski|OldEnt]] <sup>[[User_talk:Grzegorz Dąbrowski|§]]</sup> 19:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
+== Narutowicz ==
+# I'm not trying to convince the Lithuanian ultras to my POV. I'm trying to convince them to find a single source to support theirs.
+# There's no point in creating any longer article on Wikipedia. If the Lithuanians let the article live long enough for us to finish, there'll always be Dan and other trolls.''<font color="#901">//</font>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)