This is an archive of past discussions about User:Piotrus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Często znajduję Twoje imię jako (w spół)autora wielu artykułów. Podziwiam wiedzę historyczną potrzebną do napisania i uaktualniania tych artykułów. Pozostaję też ciągle pod wrażeniem Twojej metody prowadzenia dyskusji, która jest na wysokim i profesjonalnym poziomie. Przez pewien czas podejrzewałem, że jesteś zawodowym negocjatorem.
Gratuluje.
Piotrus hi, I came accross this comment[[1]] from one of the editors and I'm under impression that this is his honest opinion regarding the article.
I was wondering if you could comment on that when you get a chance. I also left a message with Malik. I'm not sure how to aproach this but I also
think that the article needs some attantion, so people do not get the wrong impresions.
Thanks Piotrus and no rush, when you can.--Jacurek (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
Once again, this month, we have a bumper crop of featured and A-class content, and our heartfelt thanks go to editors who have worked so hard to write these. But with our growth in quality content comes increased demand for reviewers. Which is where you can help.
Reviewing is easy and rewarding. You don't need any prior experience and you don't need to write a full review. Any input is helpful so you initially can just comment on what you're comfortable with. Most reviewers start off by focusing one or two things – say, the historical context, or the text, or the references, or the layout, or the images – and as they gain experience, they broaden the scope of the review. You can easily keep up to date with which articles need review, by copying this text – {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} – to your userpage or talkpage. Thanks in anticipation, Roger Davies
JonCatalán has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his distinguished service as a coordinator of this project, his thorough article reviews, and his exemplary contributions to 14 featured articles, one featured topic, and many A-Class and good articles.
Someone posted a block of text to Parental alienation syndrome about Poland, with I believe Polish references. They look like blog posts, but there may be sources that could be used. Would you be willing to review Talk:Parental alienation syndrome#Poland and comment on reliability, original research issues, syntheses, etc? A note that the page is rather heavily disputed, but I don't think anyone will object to an adequately sourced section about the country. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex13:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You never know who you're going to get for a blind posting, I wanted someone who could not only read the language, but evaluate the claims in specific, scholarly ways and how it would integrate with a complicated page. The FA/GA stars at the top were a sign that you could do that. If it were just a translation request I'd have done as you suggested, but in this case I needed someone who grasps internal policies as well. Thanks for this favour, I'll stick with strictly WT:POLAND requests from here on. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, I tried very hard regarding to do with mentioned articles, I did everything I was asked, and... nothing positively happend. My translations of the FA articles from Polish Wikipedia look now as the monstrous academic works, full of citations which in the Encyclopedia - IMHO - are not necessary, and without any result. I feel "zniesmaczony" and I decided to return to pl-wiki, where I do not have to "beg" for the DYK or anything else. Furthermore I found English Wikipedia very American, I am not really happy with. I hope you will understand my point of view. The American Wikipedia will survive without me (as well as Polska or any other), but in fact I feel better improving my own country's playground then adding unwanted "polskie gówno" into the American mainstream, where nobody cares what I am doing, multiplying and repeating stupid demands. belissarius (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Jerzy Borejsza
On May 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jerzy Borejsza, 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.
I am a student in Seoul National University in South Korea doing a research project on Wikipedia. I am very impressed about your insight and active contributions. I thought you could provide some opinions really worthwhile. So, would it be possible for you to take some time off and give an online interview via E-mail? It would provide my project a lively voice of an actual administrator. And this will be of a great meaning; your experience, concerns, opinions and ideas would add a lot to my project. Actually I'm in real need of something concrete; for my project is about the mechanism a biased version of explanation is settled, and as you will probably guess, understanding such things involves a lot more than just watching explicit process. Again, I would really, really appreciate your help.
If you are willing to give some help, would you mind mailing me swiftly? I have a list of questions about Wiki. Thanks a lot. I also leave this message to other administrators' user talk for my research.And further I'm a starter so I couldn't find your e-mail address. Please don't be upset about that.
On May 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan Dekert, 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.
On May 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louis Littlepage, 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.
While I can't say that I'm on friendly terms with Matthead, to say the least, in this instance I think he's just reverting a blocked/banned user's sock, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin so these reverts are fine, and not in violation of the Arb Enf decision or subsequent sanctions. They just fall under "rvv".radek (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Except that the edits that brought Matthead to my attention had nothing whatsoever to any other editor, and the suspicious edits were removals of the name from articles whose subjects were named after Copernicus, a rather obvious fact worth mentioning and not removing, don't you think? I knew nothing about any Arbcom enforcement at the beginning, but it now seems well deserved. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Basically the Wiki policy on Copernicus (and a couple others) is to avoid mention of nationality since that way just lies endless edit wars and Ragnarok. I see now that user Lisybnvc has not been "officially" declared a sock of Serafin, but, assuming good faith, I can see why Matthead assumed that. Ugh, I can't believe I'm now defending Matthead.radek (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Kudos, CalendarWatcher, for choosing to contact an administrator who is very neutral in all aspects regarding Polish matters, or my humble self. The "problem runs deeper", indeed. Regarding my reverts to Copernicus-related articles above, you may want to check the contribs of the user account I reverted, and the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin, a banned user who frequently contributes to Wikipedia according to his motto "Booooooooo COPERNICUS is POLISH astronomer". CalendarWatcher, as you seem to have a firm stance regarding Copernicus' ethnicity and nationality, could you please enlight me and others why the Prussian who undoubtedly spoke and wrote German, but never Polish, has to be labelled as Polish in a number of lists, calendar entries etc.? -- Matthead Discuß 16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I found this particular editor simply of his obvious intersection with you, Matthead--there's this little thing known as a 'contributions' page, perhaps you should look into it--and thought it prudent to ask someone knowledgeable. As for my own, I don't care a fig about Copernicus and have no particular knowledge or opinion regarding him. On the other hand, as it's now clear that you're past-sanctioned nationalist fanatic with a narrow agenda, I do have an opinion regarding you, namely that all of your edits must be watched carefully. Thank you for helping make that clear. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the copyvio template to this article, which needs full review given the extensive problems pointed out on the talk page. If you disagree, we should seek an uninvolved administrator, perhaps at WP:AN, to weigh in. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No, of course not, but we need to make sure that what's been identified is all that's been added. Traditionally, I find it helpful to identify the contributor who brought it in to be sure that other infringing material was not introduced at the same time. If we're lucky, it was a one-shot editor. If not, the contributor also needs to have the copyright policy explained. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that it can take me several hours with complex articles to review them. That, and the fact that this article is important, are the reasons I invited participation from contributors who are likely to be knowledgeable in this area. Obviously, we want to restore it to publication as soon as we can be sure that the issues are addressed. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've identified the source of at least some of the material, [5], and I'm afraid it's not going to help simplify matters because he seems to be the primary contributor to the article. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to suspect that most infringement is done innocent of ill-intent, usually because people do not understand our policies or US copyright law. (Occasionally, we get a die-hard infringer who seems just to want to cause trouble or to want to defy policy/law, but those seem to be rare.) It can be very hard, though, to review contributions from a contributor who has been active for this long. Since you seem to have history with him (just from his talk page), would you like to bring up the matter? I don't mind; I do it a lot; but given your history, I thought you might prefer. If you do, can you please ask him if he knows of any other copyrighted text he might have introduced onto Wikipedia? (I'm reviewing his edits on this article, but haven't made out of 2007 yet. I'm beginning to think a line by line search on the article may be quicker.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look at the note you left him in a little while. I've switched my technique: I found some problems in the past that had been wiped in other edits. So I've decided to do a close check of the current article anyway. I think I'll finish faster that way. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I think that a lot of the material I may have inserted when I was new to Wikipiedia, I'm almost sure that many of it is mine. I would like to help fixing it. Can you guys contact me if you need help or tell me how can I help? --Jacurek (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry..I see the message from Piotrus now, thanks, I'm careful now about that. I was just not aware about this rule then. Does Moonriddengirl need any of my assistance?--Jacurek (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
On May 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan Dekert, 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.
Polish Areas Annexed by Nazi Germany-John Demjanjuk
Give me a break Piotrus, look at Skapperods recent edits Polish Areas Annexed by Nazi Germany that continually point out that the sourced material was published in the communist era. Edit after edit. Is this is not an attempt to label the material communist propaganda?
Thanks for advice, but please check the recent edits made that imply that the material is communist propaganda. They highlight what I have been saying. If you need my help in a dispute, just drop me a lineRegards--Woogie10w (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I read this. But his edits yesterday have ruined the article. The implication of the posts is that the material is worthless
communist propaganda. He knows he can't delete it, so it has been labled communist propaganda in the eyes of the reader. Very clever, trick indeed. I will not be suprised if other articles get the same treatment. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Note well, I have avoided an edit war, I am not stupid. Time is on our side, we need to work together to make sure that POV pushers don't destroy the Polish articles. Let me repeat, I will help if you guys need me, just send a message. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Czarne oceany cover.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Czarne oceany cover.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Signature
Please edit your signature, adding to the end to close the tags. Otherwise the formatting is carried to following comments.Otto4711 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome! I'll continue to edit the piece this coming week. It's an interesting article on a long-neglected topic. Best, twelsht (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of City guard
I have nominated City guard, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City guard. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Sorry about that. I got to City guard, was trying to work out what I did before, saw that I PRODed it and that you recommended to take it to AfD, so I did without considering a merge. My apologies. ninety:one12:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, reviews of either or both of the books you suggested at the Signpost review desk would be great! If you want to undertake them, feel free to move them to "in the works" section, and just let me know when you have drafts you'd like feedback on or that are ready to be published.--ragesoss (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Byzantinism
On May 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantinism, 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.
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Kraków you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 14 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. SilkTork *YES!15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus. I have failed Kraków. There is a fair bit of work to do. I have left comments on the review page: Talk:Kraków/GA1. I will continue working on it as a contributor to help bring it up to standard. I feel this is possible - but would be inappropriate to do this while I was still the reviewer. Regards SilkTork *YES!15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I've added tags to the articles that were untagged, and I'll keep that form from here on out. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Polish elections
Thanks for your comment, quite probably in the future I will work on another Polish election but I'm not sure when. There are so many election articles from around the world that are either stubs or have not even been started yet, and this is where I am concentrating on (at the moment anyway). I find it most interesting to just quite randomly pick different countries and improve (or start) an article rather than just sticking with any one country. Davewild (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Battle of Bologna
On May 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Bologna, 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.
Have you considered using the {{Harvnb}} template to help standardise the citations in this article? I think as well it would help alleviate Ling Nut's objection at FAC to include the publication year in each citation, which the Harvnb template will also make easier. I'll do a few to help out if you've no objections. --MalleusFatuorum14:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but I just felt I needed to say this.
It may not seem like it to you now, but I'm very confident that if you address the few objections raised so far—expand the background section, standardise the citation format—and calmly deal with any others that may come up this article will pass. The worst possible thing you can do though is to get into an acrimonious disputes with a reviewer. Avoid that at all costs, even if you have to sit on your hands for a few minutes before replying.
I'm not trying to be critical of anything you've done, I'm just offering a friendly word of advice; take it or leave it as you see fit. --MalleusFatuorum04:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
(copied from my talk) The most important thing is that you produce an excellent article, the subject deserves no less. FAC is secondary to that. --MalleusFatuorum13:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Citation templates
Hi, Piotrus. Malleus's Talk page happens to be on my watchlist, so I saw your query about Citation templates. User:Philcha#Useful_stuff has a list of good things I use, including form-driven tools for producing citation templates. --Philcha (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw this, from Malleus' Talk page - he runs his the other way, with complete conversations: --Philcha (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Point them to "my preferences>gadgets>reftools", makes things very easy for them Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In fact I think it's very much easier even for a beginner to use a template rather than to hand-craft a citation. Hand-crafting citations is for the brave. --MalleusFatuorum 23:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep.
Hi, Piotr. The refTools gadget (the one Parrot of Doom just mentioned) makes about 95% of citations pretty easy - just fill in a form and click its "Add citation" button. This tool's biggest problem is that, like most of Wikipedia, its documentation is poor - I hadn't realised that myself until I started trying to think like a new user, because I was used to hand-coding citation template calls. However I can produce something that will help fairly quickly, if you're interested. The first step would be to agree an outline that shows the user guide's scope and the arrangement of sections. --Philcha (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You may find this of interest
I just picked this book up in the library yesterday, you may find it of interest.
Author is Phillip T. Rutherford
Title is Prelude to the Final Solution: The Nazi Program for Deporting Ethnic Poles, 1939-1941Hardcover, ISBN0700615067
Publisher: Univ Pr of Kansas, 2007
The fate of Polish Jews under the German occupation has been well documented, but not as much is known about the wartime ordeal of non-Jewish Poles. Phillip Rutherford investigates Nazi policies of "ethnic cleansing" to reveal the striking anti-Polish nature of the crusade to Germanize newly occupied territory and to show...
This will suffice as a reliable source, but the article would need some redo work. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Re:Battle of Bologna assess
I have replied at Talk:Battle of Bologna#Citations with my rationale. It's just a tiny improvement though, so I should have left a rationale on the page or in the edit summary. Sorry, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If your sig doesn't always work, it's probably because you have a pipe "|" in your sig. Sometimes the page you are on is transcluded onto a template, and when recalled the template hits the pipe in your sig and breaks it. --64.85.220.141 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not 100% on this, but I think {{!}} is for such situations. But if templates aren't OK in sigs, then try using "|". --64.85.220.141 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Battle of Ancona
On May 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Ancona, 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.
Hey Piotrus. On May 23 an IP added a death date to Tadeusz Pyka, and I was wondering if you could confirm that Pyka has died. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, please accept this decoration as an appreciation not only for your outstanding contributions but also for all the support and exceptional advices I have received from you that have made me a better editor that I was before.--Jacurek (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
FAR for Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
I have nominated Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ja piorkuje!
Hi, I am busy in the real world and can’t spend time at my desk playing at Wikipedia. Briefly I believe you may find this Wikipedia guideline relevant WP:HOUND. You have done a lot of excellent work on Poland that I value Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
User page suggestion
Hi Piotrus, I took a stroll through your very interesting user page - impressive! I would like to recommend a very nice Wikipedian named Ariel♥Gold. She has helped a lot of users with their user pages. I think your userpage has interesting content but could use a little organization and color to spruce it up a bit. NancyHeisetalk 00:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Voivode
Witaj, słowa "governor" użyłem dla uproszczenia dla angielskojęzycznego czytelnika, dla którego słowo "governor" jest bardziej czytelne i zrozumiałe od "voivode", z którym jest zresztą problem dotyczący samego przetłumaczenia z polskiego "wojewoda". Zresztą, tutaj jest zresztą napisane: The word gradually came to denote the governor of a province; the territory ruled or administered by a voivode is known as a voivodeship. A po trzecie... wojewoda (governor) jest przedstawicielem władzy centralnej (rządu - government). W angielskojęzycznej wikipedii powinniśmy stosować angielsko brzmiące słowa. Radziński(t) 11:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Archiwum cyfrowe
W Polsce nie działa Fundacja. Mamy Stowarzyszenie Wikimedia Polska. W nim działają atkywni Wikipedyści i nie tylko, bo też ludzie z innych projektów. Stowarzyszenie jednak nie zarzadza Wikipedią. Ta podlega jedynie Wikimedia Foundation USA. Pozdrawiam Paweł Drozd Drozdp (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I will get the books; just don't get your hopes too high—the few books dealing with the administrative divisions of Poland of the 19th century that I have are mostly reference lists of populated places, but I'll see if there's anything useful in the intros.
Regarding the legend, here's the translation. The scale of the map is 48 versts per English inch. Left column of the legend:
Sorry it took me a while to get to the books. No good news, I'm afraid. As I suspected, the books I have do not have much background information in addition to the lists of places. The mentions of the krai are, of course, scattered throughout the books, but there is nothing dealing with its history/establishment specifically.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, May 1, 2009 (UTC)
Problems confirmed with the user you suggested I look into. I've asked for further assistance from WP:COPYCLEAN. I've found several problematic article so far. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
References at Polish culture in WWII
Hi Piotrus,
Ack! The weekend is now ending and I have papers to grade! My free time is dwindling, for the present.
I certainly have no objections to reinserting the Google book links (well, actually, I have great personal reservations, and many FAC reviewers share those reservations.. but I can't force you to adopt my views..). I do not believe that their presence or absence threatens or influences the FAC process in any way, so restoring them is not a matter of great urgency. I will try to sprinkle them back in over the next couple days, whenever I have free time. If you just wanna do it yourself, you can, of course. Either way, those Google book links will be fully restored within two or three days... sorry if I am a slowpoke about it, though. Please do let me know if this is satisfactory... Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Molobo's SPI case
Dear Piotrus, can you please wait for sometime? I'm also against secret trails. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Answered on my talk page. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Stefan Knapp's photo
This: [8], seems like it would be in the public domain since it's a war time photo. Am I correct? I could really use some images for my Stefan Knapp article. I'd prefer some photos of his work but I'll take a soldier's photo. Thanks.radek (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Przedbórz / Przedbósz
Just looked up Przedbórz in Wikipedia, since my father was born there (He emigrated to the U.S. in 1912, at age 8.), and noticed what may be a minor error. The IPA pronunciation appears to be for PrzedbóSz and not PrzedbóRz. I haven't corrected this, since I don't speak Polish, and words aren't always pronounced the way they are spelled.
BTW: There are pictures of models of wooden synagogues in Poland and nearby countries at www.zchor.org/verbin/verbin.htm, which may be suitable for inclusion in articles like the one about the Przedbórz synagogue.
Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh@pacbell.net> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.7.173 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, more discussion at [9]. Novickas (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Got a book that may be of interest for you
I acquired recently a book of Janina Jaworska under the title of Polska sztuka walcząca: 1939-1945 (see here and Google). It may be of interest in writing Polish culture during World War II, so if you'll have an information that needs referencing, just leave me a note and I'll try to help with this book. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Likewise congratulations, it seems to have been quite an effort. Magic♪piano 01:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, good job.radek (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Jan Piekałkiewicz
On June 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jan Piekałkiewicz, 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.
With end of year exams beckoning for many members, this has been a quiet month on the talk pages for Milhist. (If you are facing exams yourself, we all wish you the very best of luck!) During this quieter period, some of our most active reviewers are busy revising so it would be really appreciated if you can help with peer reviews or A-Class reviews. You can easily track articles needing review, by copying {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your userpage.
This month sees our first newsletter editorial. The idea is to provide regular tips and hints to help editors get up to speed with our large (and sometimes complicated) project. This month's piece, by EyeSerene, explains the workings of the project's main template, which is at the core of the project's tagging and assessing activities. Roger Daviestalk 20:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In a welcome addition to a long under-represented area, this month saw the creation of the Pakistani military history task force, which hits the ground running with 11 participants.
Welcome to a new occasional feature of The Bugle, where over coming issues we'll be exploring some of the roles, tasks, and technical functions that go into creating what archivist and researcher Simon Fowler has described as the best general resource for military history on the internet.† As a project we can rightly be proud of that accolade, and we gratefully acknowledge the debt we owe to those dedicated editors from across Wikipedia that have helped to make the Military history WikiProject what it is today.
Many editors' first inkling of milhist's existence is when they spot our project banner on an article talk page. The banner can be easily added to appropriate articles by any editor, by typing {{WPMILHIST}} at (or near) the top of the talk page on a new line, and saving the page with an appropriate edit summary. This short form of the template will add the article to our project, and also flag the article as needing assessment and assignment to a task force by automatically adding it to the unassessed articles and articles with no associated task force categories.
As with many templates in use on Wikipedia, additional parameters can be specified. Possibly the most useful to include is the class parameter, because this will help out any editors who come along later to assess the article. To add the class parameter, edit the template markup to look like {{WPMILHIST|class=}}... and if you wish, have a read through the assessment guidance on milhists's quality scale and assign a rating from Stub- to B-Class yourself. A banner template with, for example, a Stub-Class article rating will look like {{WPMILHIST|class=stub}}. Because B-Class is assessed against a checklist it has some additional parameters, so when adding the project banner to an article talk-page, even if you don't intend to assess the article yourself it can be a real help to subsequent editors to include these too. This version of the template can be entered as {{WPMILHIST|class=|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=}}. For detailed guidance on exactly what the five B-Class criteria are, see the B-class checklist.
Finally, when adding the milhist banner it's useful to assign the article to one (or more) of our task forces. This will help to bring it to the attention of those editors most likely to be interested in, and knowledgeable about, the subject. As with assessment, task force assignment is accomplished by adding a parameter to the template—in this case, simply the name of the task force followed by =yes (or =y). For example, to assign a Start-Class article to the Second World War and Canadian task forces, the template should read {{WPMILHIST|class=start|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=|WWII=yes|Canadian=yes}}.
For a full list of all the banner template parameters and more detailed usage instructions, see Template:WPMILHIST; if you are unsure as to whether or not an article belongs with milhist or what task force(s) might be appropriate, or if you have any other questions, you are welcome to ask at our main project talk page. Happy templating! EyeSerenetalk
†Simon Fowler, Guide to Military History on the Internet, UK:Pen & Sword 2007, ISBN9781844156061, p. 7
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
File correction
Hey there. I happened upon File:PPTSuperComputersPRINT.jpg. While it may not be possible to update the graph, one correction should be made: On the sidebar, it says "Flops (Floating point operations)". This isn't entirely correct, as it should read "Flops (Floating point operations per second)". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. One of those articles you were asking about at my talkpage has come current at today's CP: Polish Army Museum. This one is not tagged to WikiProject Poland, so your project will not have been notified even if it has notifications requested (through whatever bot it is that delivers those). I see a couple will come up for closure tomorrow and at least two on June 5th. I don't think there are many listed at CP, though, because as I mentioned at my talk page many have been cleaned immediately. I think infringment may be restricted to the "Establishment" section, but I would ask if you choose to address it that you double check subsequent material just to be sure. Do you want to handle it, or should I remove the text? I'll check back. :) Meanwhile, back to the grindstone. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you haven't responded, I'll presume that you're not interested, and I'll handle it myself. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand. There's always a billion things to do, isn't there? :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you look at it?
Piotrus sorry to bother you but my rollback rights have been removed and I was placed on the restriction list[[10]] but I think the admin made a mistake. I rolled back the edits of a banned editor[[11]] and the other one was of anon editor who never edited before[[12]] and removed a picture and tons of sourced material, changed names of Polish cities from Kresy in 1931 but according to the rules the names should be as they were then not now. I really think that this was a vandalism and not a good faith edits. If you don't want to get involved here, it is o.k. because I know that the very same administrator who placed these restrictions on me accused me of being you buddy but if you would like to look at it and comment I would appreciate. I left a message with other involved admin. also [[13]] and the admin who originally banned that user[[14]]. Thanks Piotrus.--Jacurek (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus, tell me please what it is supposed to mean? [15]. This tag is completely unnecessary and I hope you will remove it. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It reminds editors that the article is not linked to from any other articles. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be linked to each other; if you can, add links to Polish 1988 strikes into other articles. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Czesław Madajczyk
On June 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Czesław Madajczyk, 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.
On June 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gazette de Leyde, 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.
I ticked this for DYK, but I think the language re Bronze Night incident needs to be tidied up in the article itself - see my comment on the DYK discussion page. Good work. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind comment. I will give the expansion a go and make a nomination sometime soon. Calaka (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As an update from the above comment, I did a bit of work on the article so feel free to take a look at the page and tell me what you think. I would have added more sources but I am hindered by my inability to read Polish (fluently anyway, I get a few bits and pieces like glos = voice etc.) so if you wanted to add more sources to substantiate/add depth to the article by all means (there is this but not sure how trustworthy is the sight: [16]). Finally I found this image via Google images: [17], is there any way you know of that you can confirm that is Jan and if the image is in the public domain (I am guessing it is, but not sure how all this copyright stuff works). If so, feel free to either let me know and I will put the image up or you can do it yourself. Kind regards. Calaka (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Have gone ahead and nominated it: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_June_13, hopefully there will be a response soon. Also, I uploaded the picture on commons but it is giving me an error and says the file will be deleted in 7 days unless I fix it... not sure what I did wrong though! Calaka (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured it out! Now I will upload the pick to his page and also to the DYK listing I made. Cheers and thanks again for the suggestion, without which I probably wouldn't have gone to fixing up the article to a start level. Calaka (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Cześć Piotrus :) I see you also commented "Keep" at the AfD for the above. I was wondering whether, as a Polish speaker, you could add inline citations to the article from some of the Polish news coverage I mentioned in the deletion discussion? I can't read Polish myself, but I think a bulkier reference section on the article might help it do better in the deletion discussion. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
"Duchy" of Stolp
This actually never was a separate duchy, but was always a part of the Duchy of Pomerania. At times, several brothers/cousins/uncles from the ducal house of Pomerania ruled this duchy in common, with each of them satisfied with a distinct share where they were de facto independent rulers in respect to the inner affairs of their respective share, and were all addressed as dukes. But these shares never had the status of a duchy, but were just shares of the same duchy. This practice is called Realteilung (="real sharing"). The CoA you introduced was not the one of this (nonexistant) duchy, but the one of Stolp City.
I therefore redirected the page to Duchy of Pomerania again and hope you don't mind. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The hits you provided are 6 for Fürstentum and 49 fur Herzogtum Stolp. They result from laziness/inaccuracy of the authors, compare to 494 hits for Pommern-Stolp, indicating that it was a part-duchy and not a separate one. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
On June 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black Procession, 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.
Hi. I will try to expand it, but the sources are rather scarce, even in Georgian. Cheers, --KoberTalk 15:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Eastern Europe
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Eastern Europe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Battle of Warsaw (1920),
Witold J. Ławrynowicz June 26, 2009
To Whom It May Concern:
I recently found the following page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)
This page essentially accuses me of plagiarizing material from the Electronic Museum website for the “Battle of Warsaw (1920)” article I wrote for the Polish Militaria Collectors Association publication. Since I was not informed about these proceedings against my work, I was denied the possibility of addressing the charges. I will do so at this time.
The accusation of plagiarism from the Electronic Museum page is not only a very serious attack on my reputation as a writer and historian, it is also completely false and unfounded. What your investigators, namely “Yellow Monkey,” found was the person who plagiarized my original work. I can easily prove to be the author of the article entitled “Battle of Warsaw 1920,” originally published as “W siedemdziesiątą rocznicę bitwy warszawskiej 1920” in Polish on August 9, 1990 and August 16, 1990 (in two parts), in “Głos Polski/Gazeta Polska” in Toronto, Canada. I am in possession of original newspaper copies of this article from 1990.
The piece was later translated into English, by myself personally, and subsequently published in “Hetman: Biuletyn Koła Miłośników Militariów Polskich im. Andrzeja Zaremby” (Hetman: the Polish Militaria Collectors Association publication), in 1996. I am also in possession of this copy of “Hetman.” Later in 1996, it was published on the Hetman website at www.hetman.org, which no longer exists, and is now found at www.hetmanusa.org. I can produce a witness to all of the above facts, as well as photos of the original publications.
Bożenna Kirckpatrick, whom I have never met, placed a shorter version of my work on http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Soviet-Polish_War/spw_3.html. Kirckpatrick rewrote and posted my work as her own before the www.hetman.org website was closed. This is the reason for which it seems that my work followed hers.
To put it quite bluntly, your investigators did not do their research, and my name and reputation have suffered the consequences. The accusations made against me by “Yellow Monkey,” on behalf of Wikipedia, are borderline slanderous. Before waging such an attack against a writer, Wikipedia employees and/or agents should have fully investigated the background of the article. Their failure to do their duty demonstrates a serious lack of due diligence.
At the very least, I expect Wikipedia to withdraw the accusations made against me on the Battle of Warsaw (1920) page and issue a proper apology. I will be monitoring this issue closely.
Unfortunately, there are several other issues on this webpage that I am also forced to address.
Quote 1: “As for Witold Lawrynowicz - this FAR will serve as a broader venue for his status as a reliable source. His results in Google books - 2; 1 is a biological abstract, the other a footnoting snippet [13]. Google Scholar - [14] (chemical except for one to Wikipedia) or, for W. Lawrynowicz[15] - no history-related articles.”
“Novickas” is simply unable or unwilling to find my numerous historical works published in the USA, Canada, Poland, Sweden and Great Britain. There is a grand total of 173 articles, four books, and several Internet publications on historical topics under my name. I have been publishing in the history field since 1973. It seems that “Novickas” is attacking me as if I was his personal enemy, yet I cannot recall anyone with such a pseudonim.
Quote 2: “Another sourcing issue: 17 refs go to this website: [12] by Witold Lawrynowicz. He's a chemist and an amateur historian. Hetmanusa.org is the website of the Polish Militaria Collectors Association. I don't think this is an FA-quality source.”
I do not see any justification to the statement that hetmanusa.org is not an FA-quality source. The opinion of “Novickas” has no factual foundation. I suppose “Novickas” never encountered this organization, and for this reason regards it as untrustworthy; this alone is not a reason to state that it is not an FA-quality source. I doubt that “Novickas” has ever ready any of the publications produced by Polish Militaria Collectors Association.
Quote 3: “If it were a comprehensive survey of all the literature, it would contain, for instance, an alternative to Lawrynowicz's "Stalin, in search of personal glory, wanted to capture the besieged, important industrial center of Lwów." Richard Pipes et al. are convinced that Stalin, in not moving towards Warsaw, was acting on Lenin's orders [20]. Another contradiction here, I think: this book states the Soviets accidentally destroyed their own communications center [21]. The article, ref'd to Lawrynowicz, says the 203rd Uhlan Regiment destroyed it. I'm not an expert on the topic, but a little digging has convinced me that its review suffered from a lack of knowledgeable editors. The reviewers didn't catch the plagiarism, for starters. Novickas (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)”
“Novickas” may not realize it, but the bibliography for “Battle of Warsaw (1920)” is simply too large to provide a comprehensive study for such a short article. Furthermore, Richard Pipes’ opinion is not supported by numerous other researchers, such as Norman Davies in “White Eagle, Red Star,” Orbis Books, London, 1983, page 210.
The destruction of the Russian radiostation was a direct result of action by the Polish 203rd Uhlan Regiment, which I myself described in detail in „Zdobycz ciechanowska”, Przegląd Polski, Nowy Dziennik, 08.17.2007, New York, USA. It also was described in Zbigniew Wieteska’s “27 Pułk Ułanów im. Króla Stefana Batorego,” Warszawa 1992, page 8, B. Skaradziński’s “Polskie lata 1919-1920,” Volumen, Warszawa 1993, page 241 and T. Machalski „Zagon na Ciechanów” in „Przegląd Kawalerii i Broni Pancernej”, London 1962, Nr. 28. pages 12 – 15. Writing or commenting on the history of Poland requires knowledge of the Polish language and study of Polish language sources. By his own admission, “Novickas” is not an expert on the topic, but I will refrain from attacking his ignorance personally.
Most disturbing, however, is the following statement:
Quote 4: “I submit that his historical works are not reliable sources "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." Novickas (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)”
Publications in Przegląd Kawalerii i Broni Pancernej, MARS, Wojskowy Przegląd Historyczny, Armoured Fighting Vehicles News, Hetman, AJ-Press, and others, as well as lectures for the Polish-American Historical Association and the Piłsudski Institute in New York prove “Novickas” wrong. I could defend myself further, but I think that my published pieces speak for themselves. I would encourage you to research my work further and convince yourselves of this fact.
I fully expect Wikipedia to immediately withdraw its false and unfounded judgments and publish letter of apology to myself.
While I have not asked you to remember every copyvio you have committed, we seem to disagree about where the burden of repair lies. You have quickly repaired these yourself in the past [21], [22], but you are now taking a different approach (Feel free to fix [23]). Could you explain why you addressed these problems so quickly in the previous cases, but do not now feel obligated to repair them yourself? Novickas (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are a couple more from the same source: [24], [25]. If you don't see yourself as having the time to address these problems within, say, a week after they are identified, I could adopt a policy of posting them at the copyright problems pages instead. Novickas (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Jerzy Radziwiłł article: As a member of Radziwiłł family, like his predecessors Jerzy also managed to increase his estate, which after his death was inherited by his only son Mikołaj "the Red" Radziwiłł. He had two daughters, of which the younger Barbara Radziwiłł became mistress and later queen to King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Zygmunt II August, which greatly strengthened the Radziwiłł family's position in Poland and Lithuania.
Source: [26] Like his predecessors, Jerzy also managed to increase his estate, which after his death was inherited by his only son Mikolaj IV Rudy (the Red). Of Jerzy's two daughters, the younger Barbara (*1520, †1551) became mistress and later queen to King Zygmunt II August of Poland, thus greatly enhancing the family's position in Lithuania. Diff of insertion: [27]
Mikołaj "the Black" Radziwiłł article: He provided financial support for the printing of the first complete Polish translation of the Bible in 1563, colporated works written in defense of the Reformed faith, financed a magnificent church and college in Vilnius, supported educated Protestants, and in various other ways fostered the Calvinist faith.
Source: [28] ] He financed the printing of the first Polish translation of the Bible (in 1563), diffused works written in defense of the Reformed faith, erected a magnificent church and college at Vilnius, supported learned Protestants, and in many other ways fostered the Calvinist faith. Diff of insertion: [29]Novickas (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - Novickas (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Happy birthday, Piotrus. Wish you best of luck. --KoberTalk 16:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Afd
Piotrus, there is agreement among me and users Jacurek and Radeksz to do an afd for "spieprzaj dziadu" [30] Not sure if you agree with the deletion, but if you do would you set up the afd? I have no idea how to and neither does Jacurek (he said to ask you), and honestly I don't really care to learn :) Ostap 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, this article should be deleted. A whole article dedicated to one insignificant quotation. What do you say? Tymek (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK for 1923 Kraków riot
On June 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1923 Kraków riot, 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.
In light of arbitration findings and cautions from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes specific to you, I am asking you not to comment as an administrator in any arbitration enforcement threads related to Eastern European disputes or WP:DIGWUREN. There is an appearance, to me, that your involvement in these threads tends to confound matters or intensify disputes. JehochmanTalk 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for intervening here, but can someone please move this comment about me back? The relevant ArbCom case [31] tells that:
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions.
I do not have any current conflict with Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Biophys, you may be topic banned from this area for disruptive editing, wikilawyering and battlezone tactics. I'm hardly convinced by your comments here. If anything, they convince me that you are part of the problem. Piotrus is the subject of arbitration findings subsequent to Digwuren. He is precluded from using sysop powers in EE disputes. JehochmanTalk 21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Subject of what? I am looking at Digwuren case and do not see any remedies about Piotrus. I am looking at the last EE ruling and see the following: "Piotrus is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.". What dispute? I do not even edit the same articles as Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain what happened here, but I think there may be a misunderstanding. Piotrus hasn't been involved in any of the edit wars by this particular group and actually was cautioned in an entirely different area. I've spent the past day reviewing the topic area (I've got quite a bit more to work through) and I've only seen a single case of intersection; this appears to have been because the article briefly included a description of the EE Arb case (fka Piotrus2). Shellbabelfish 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus was involved in edit warring in at least one of the articles that were subject of the AE reports [32][33]. Also, he has made a comment in every single noticeboard thread concerning this issue (if I recall correctly), often supporting the actions of Digwuren & Co., while strongly criticising me and others [34][35]. Piotrus has also appeared in some of the AfD discussions that are part of the dispute, for example [36][37][38], always voting in the same way as Digwuren. I don't think he is uninvolved. Offliner (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Shell, Piotrus has a clear history of alignment in this area towards one faction, even if he doesn't participate in many edit-wars in this specific topic-area. Everyone who knows this area is aware of this. That's not something that sets him up as an impartial adjudicator, and I'm sure he knows this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There's an arbitration finding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes#Piotrus cautioned that cautions Piotrus "to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent." Piotrus has as history of edit warring in EE disputes. I think it is an extraordinarily bad idea for him to administrate in the venue of any EE nationalistic disputes. JehochmanTalk 00:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus made a statement about issuing sanctions to me, and he has right to issue sanctions to me or to any other editor (like Offliner) with whom he "is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic" (see ruling by ArbCom above). It does not matter if he was involved in any disputes with other editors, as long as he was not involved in a conflict with me per both rulings. It appears that we edited a couple of the same articles with Piotrus (which I did not even knew or forget), but it does not matter.Biophys (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd presume the whole point of Piotrus intervening would be so that you wouldn't get sanctioned, or so they'd be lighter, and that outside admins wil be too naive to object. I'm of course renowned for my cynicism, and it is obviously just coincidence that you went to such lengths to defend each other in Piotrus 2, and that all your comments made in this mess favour each other. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I see. So that is why he placed me on "voluntarily" 1RR restriction [39].Biophys (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's an interesting take on his suggestion that you stick to the 1rr you'd already pledged yourself to. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Deacon, I am not sure your involvement here is helping, since you are viewed as partisan. JehochmanTalk 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jehochman. Deacon is not even trying to hide his dislike of Piotrus. I think help of some really uninvolved admins should be requested here. Tymek (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, I have commented on this matter on Jehochman's talk page. Sandstein 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this comment. Could you point out in which way the evidence I provided is "extremely poor"? Every diff is a revert, and thus evidence of edit warring. Or do you claim otherwise? Edit warring is something Digwuren was blocked for earlier. Offliner (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
An earlier comment from you: [40]. Could you please provide diffs of "continuing harassment of Digwuren by Offliner"? When have I started "baseless threads" about him? Or, when had I indeed started a single thread about him before that one at WP:AN, or the one at Tiptoety's talk page (where asked me to take to matter to WP:AN)? Please provide evidence for your accusations. Offliner (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you still think my evidence was "extremely poor"[41]? Please also provide evidence for accusations such as this. Remember, baseless accusations constitute personal attacks per WP:NPA, and admins are expected to behave according to the highest standards. Offliner (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please answer my question above (how many times must I still ask?)
An earlier comment from you: [42]. Could you please provide diffs of "continuing harassment of Digwuren by Offliner"? When have I started "baseless threads" about him? Or, when had I indeed started a single thread about him before that one at WP:AN, or the one at Tiptoety's talk page (where asked me to take to matter to WP:AN)? Please provide evidence for your accusations. Offliner (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Jan Władysław Dawid
Hello! Your submission of Jan Władysław Dawid 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! Awadewit (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Silesian Uprisings
Please see the talk page at Silesian Uprisings. You have inserted copyrighted material. If you still lack time to address these problems, I can post it at the copyright problems page. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Andrzej Walicki
Dear Piotrus, our wiki-relationship didn't started in a positive note, but let's move on.
I've started the bio of Andrzej Walicki. He is a Polish historian. Can you develop the bio? AdjustShift (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for your positive response. AdjustShift (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Piotr, here is a link in Polish. Can you translate it? AdjustShift (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Ceremonial marriage
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ceremonial marriage, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Redundant: The contents of this page are covered just fine by the Marriage. Common-law marriage has its own page since it is a special case with a large amount of unique information. Ceremonial marriage is covered sufficiently by the Marriage article.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Please answer my question
Did you not notice my question above, or are you just refusing to answer it? Offliner (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Nanuli Shevardnadze
Hello! Your submission of Nanuli Shevardnadze 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! Geraldk (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
AN3 comments
You really should be giving your dismissive "talk page is that-a-way" message to your buddy Nihil novi, not me. If you had stopped to actually read the report, you will see that I started a discussion at the talk page hours ago and Nihil novi has refused to respond to it and chosen to edit war instead. Given your two years of history collaborating with this editor and your willingness to jump to his defense without even looking at my report, I would appreciate it if you stayed away from this and let an uninvolved editor deal with it instead. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"Wikilawyering" is the same thing Nihil accused me of, and I would appreciate it if someone could specify what they think I've done that was wikilawyering. Calling someone out for lying in an edit summary? For performing reverts while ignoring a discussion on the talk page?
Or, if you can't be specific about what you mean by "wikilawyering", I would appreciate it even more if you just dropped this non-issue and found something else to do. There's nothing left to discuss (if you haven't noticed, I already withdrew the AN3 report now that Nihil novi has finally agreed to communicate). If you think I was being disruptive by making numerous attempts [43][44][45] to have a discussion on the talk page before ever reporting the user (see the timestamps), then I have little to say to you. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Spieprzaj dziadu!
An article about the president of a sovereign state that says "he said 'Spieprzaj dziadu!'"? That seems WP:UNDUE doesn't it? Ostap 16:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Genetics of voting
Hi Professor,
Would Genetics of voting be a good sociology article to work on as extra credit, there is none on Wikipedia. Koliber (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Denastroje (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Professor, will you let me know if I correctly added our group article link (group 3), I couldn't find specific instructions on the course page regarding this part of the process. Let me know if I've overlooked it.
Ah, Now Things Make Sense
He had made a test article so I had thought that his next edit was a test edit; I didn't realize he was one of your students. Sorry for the confusion. :) -WarthogDemon 23:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll show her the sandbox and give her a welcome template. -WarthogDemon 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Wiki Editing
This is Kaylee From Soc 0438. I intend to start editing our groups article Wednesday or Thursday. I just wanted to give my group a chance to respond to my e-mail (I e-mailed you about that) however I have been practicing and "started" a article. I wasn't sure if i was just fooling around or if it would turn into a developed article so I just did it as a user page type thing rather than an actual article. I don't know if it is any good or not or if it is sociology related. I thought it might be because it's about gender. The article is User:KayPet/Girlosophy. I don't know if it's good enough to get any extra-credit, but i thought it would be good practice. Should I continue to work on it?
--KayPet (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Piotrus, I'm sure you've dealt with things like this before, so I thought you'd be a good person to ask: are edit summaries like this edit summary actionable under WP:DIGWUREN or anything else? Smith2006 was blocked for a while for this sort of thing, but I'm wondering if you also think this is enough for anything substantial. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus. The most active AE admins have come up with a new format for AE threads that's designed to improve the workability of the process. The uninvolved admins section in particular is very important for the process, as it enables focused discussion from action-capable admins to take place in a more helpful environment. To work however it requires that editors co-operate with the intended function and evaluate their own "involvedness" honestly. For these reasons it is not appropriate for you to posture as uninvolved in this latest thread concerning Radek. So to show some good spirit I think you should revert this. Can you do that? :) Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Sociology in China
On July 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sociology in China, 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.
I've replied to you here; my basic point is that I'm drawing the line at being the subject of adverse findings, not at merely being listed as a party.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns about this situation. Kirill[talk][pf] 15:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Possible move of Nazi plunder
I have started a discussion on possibly moving Nazi plunder. As you are currently a reasonably active editor, as well as a past contributor to the article, I hope you can find some time to make comments at renaming Nazi plunder. Unschool 17:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the DYK suggestion. I'm afraid it's probably too late for Chmielowski—he's over 5 days old (June 29) and probably too short. But if I start more new articles, I'll keep DYK in mind.
I finally broke down and found out how to archive. Thanks for the suggestion! Nihil novi (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Soc 0438
This is Mary Hecker and my username is meh40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by meh40 (talk • contribs)
Hey Professor, this is Laura Grimm from the Soc of the Family class. My username is Lngrimm. See you on Thursday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lngrimm (talk • contribs)
Hey Professor, I'm Lenny Caric from your Soc. of the Family class, and my user name is in fact, Lenny Caric. This should be pretty uncomplicated for all.
Kaylee Petsch is username KayPet. I have added myself to group 2 and am waiting for my other group members to do so. I am also posting a diff of that edit for the extra credit. If I have done anything wrong please let me know, I am very unfamiliar with this.
Denastroje (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Hey Professor, I am Dena Stroje in your Sociology of the Family class (2nd summer 09). I've created my account, and added my name as well as our missing group members to group three. I've made a two edits so far. My username is denastroje, so I shouldn't be that difficult to find! Here is the link to my diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scrapbooking&diff=prev&oldid=298435069
This is Maggie Ryan, I made an account and my username is MagggieR. Thanks!
Koliber =it's me
Dear Instructor
I just want to identify myself so Koliber is Bozena in your soc. class.
Sincerely,
Hello Prof, this is Daniel Lunsford and I have created my wiki id as drlunz36! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlunz36 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to the history of the page I edited, about the Lionsgate film Warrior, filmed in Pittsburgh.
Thanks
Chad Bruns
Hey Professor, I'm Jarred Holley from your Soc. of the Family class, and my user name is in fact, JarredHolley. Also, I edited Wiki by creating a page about myself! Jarred Holley
Hi Piotr, I tried to edit the Weddings in the US page, and as soon as I saved it, it was deleted. I think I understand why, because I only did the headings, but obviously planned to add more. I'm not really sure what to do now. Thanks for any help, Maggie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagggieR (talk • contribs) 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hej, potrzebuję kogoś z uprawnieniami tutaj. Znalazłem to w polskiej i już usunąłem - Lajsikonik wstawił hasło z literówką a bot to bezmyślnie przekopiował na tą Wiki. Próbowałem to załatwić ale któryś admin już mi to revertował. Chodzi o to, że ta część miasta Olecko nazywa się Lesk. Problemem jest to, że istnieje już strona Lesk i jest przekierowaniem do Łęsk. Leck trzeba wywalić jako zupełnie błędne i albo zrobić disambiga (chociaż to głupie robić disambiga z błędnym zapisem nazwy - chociaż widziałem już tony takich redirów). Dasz radę sprzątnąć bałagan? Pozdrawiam Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Środa treasure
On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Środa treasure, which you recently nominated. 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.
I moved the article from the propaganda name, but it still needs lots of copyedit and revision: lots of non-English names, weasel terms and so on. Would you..? :) //Halibutt 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can you check this article out? User Lvivskie permanently throw out pictures and facts about massacres Poles in Volhynia. Best redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Wiki work
I have made several edits on the reborning page and plan to continue over the weekend. I am still trying to allow my group members to contribute and because we have somewhat assigned certain parts, so I've just continued research and keeping my eye on it. In the mean time I have also made a few edits to my extra credit article and took your suggestion in moving it to article status. I also posted it on the project page under the individual extra credit assignments, so you knew i was continuing to work on it. Let me know if you have any suggestion for either articles. Thanks. --KayPet (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay I did a couple of the suggestions, but I failed miserably trying to upload an image for an Infobox. Maybe this is something you can show me. I hope I didn't mess anything up. I'll work on the reborn article later tonight.--KayPet (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
File:German Soviet.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:German Soviet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Marxist sociology
On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marxist sociology, 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.
: 11 May 2009
This process may take up to 14 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. SilkTork *YES! 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Jan Władysław Dawid 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! Awadewit (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
![[8]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.polishairforce.pl/portrety/knapp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.polishairforce.pl/knap.html&usg=__Pd3hiEDzSXQQFwfLRZEC_Q9XPtk=&h=284&w=200&sz=31&hl=en&start=19&tbnid=r230YhWjYgQtqM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=80&prev=/images%3Fq%3DStefan%2BKnapp%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.glos.pl/pliki/04_Dawid216.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.glos.pl/subp_dyn.php%3Fid%3D214%26idg%3D149%26action%3Dshow&usg=__OeX08pBAIm3hJVheRMv8zNi7M1U=&h=264&w=216&sz=147&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=GOAlvTOMQndNpM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=92&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJan%2BW%25C5%2582adys%25C5%2582aw%2BDawid%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1){kind=link}
