User talk:Staszek Lem
- 1 Invitation to join Women in Red
- 2 Tsarist autocracy
- 3 "Hands of God/Heaven"
- 4 Vasilisa
- 5 Might be of interest to you
- 6 January 2018
- 7 Dnipro edits
- 8 Croatian census
- 9 You edit to "Polish death camp" controversy
- 10 Your reversions to "Polish death camp" controversy
- 11 Raróg and CD Projekt Logo
- 12 Merger discussion for Bayesian
- 13 Continuation War
- 14 Talk:"Polish_death_camp"_controversy#RFC_on_"misnomer"
- 15 New Page Reviewer Flag
- 16 Conflation of Nav/Rusalka into Boginka
- 17 New page reviewer granted
- 18 Propaganda
- 19 "not a competition"
- 20 Contiguity
- 21 Sir William Coates, 1st Baronet
- 22 A project for you
- 23 NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
- 24 Red links
- 25 NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
- 26 Please comment on Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology
- 27 Reverts in human nature
- 28 Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology
- 29 Disambiguation link notification for June 29
- 30 Please comment on Talk:Kombucha
- 31 Please comment on Talk:Cranial electrotherapy stimulation
Invitation to join Women in Red
|Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.|
You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, just 17.37% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
Could you place the following text back this anonymous contributor removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsarist_autocracy&diff=746461868&oldid=744634240
Also, it is mindbaffling how this article still exists, given the repeated discussions on the talkpage which all point at the poor quality of research by which the article hangs together (barely). 2001:1C02:1907:9500:5961:8A5E:9CFA:3884 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @2001:1C02:1907:9500:5961:8A5E:9CFA:3884: I agree the article is a mess, but the text you want to restore IMO does not have direct relevance to the article subject. Also the text "have pointed to a racial element in the concept" -s Wikipedian's interpretation of sources, i.e., a piece original wikipedian's research inadmissible in wikipedia. 17:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
AS I understand it, the original writer of the piece pointed at some authors that highlighted figures, like Kennan and other US Cold War historians/policy makers, who basically said that the 'concept' or 'model' is part of the Russian race/ethnicity. This was the argument of the authors, not so much of the original writer here. At least, that's how I read the references. But again, I find that a great deal of the sources there could be dismissed as irrelevant and non-specialist. But hey, what do you expect, when everyone who knows his way around with a keyboard and google thinks he's an academic specialist? Googling some terms, not reading the actual works to understand why the terms are mentioned, not grasping the debate, apparently stands for encyclopedic integrity here. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6979:A7F1:7DD3:F83C (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
"Hands of God/Heaven"
Might be of interest to you
Hello, I'm Albin Schmitt. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:"Polish_death_camp"_controversy#Edits_by_Icewhiz that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. APStalk 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Riadder: -- Please provide a citation that vlach are "officially recongized minority". Did you realy understand what I wrote in you talk page? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
You edit to "Polish death camp" controversy
Hello, I'm R9tgokunks. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 23:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Your reversions to "Polish death camp" controversy
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Raróg and CD Projekt Logo
Hi. You removed my information on Raróg used in CD Projekt logo claimning it was an false statement... but it was not. See the Polish version of the news: "W dniu 14 maja br. Raróg staje się podstawą nowej identyfikacji wizualnej studia [...]" SMiki55 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SMiki55: My edit summary says "(rm false statement, based on misreading of the source)" . The statement of the band says that their logo is Northern Cardinal. The band quote further says:
"red color <...> we share with one more being: Rarog".(the stricken text is directly from Polish. English language version is even more blunt: "The colour, cardinal RED, is something that connects it with another bird <...>Rarog". I.e. that Rarog is logo is a fantasy of the author of the article. The logo itself has nothing to do with traditional visual representations of Rarog (of course, they are fantasies themselves :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SMiki55: IMHO I clearly wrote this is an (uneducated) opinion of the person who wrote the article, not of the band. The image is clearly NOT Rarog as everybody understands Rarog. Who do you think more reliable source: the article writer or the band themselves who clearly wrote another bird? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Bayesian—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thx for the edits at Winter War! Mind looking at the lede of Continuation War as well? I recently built it up for GA nomination and it's going through a GOCE c/e now, but could use more opinions on streamlining the lede. Manelolo (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Cześć Staszek Lem! Just a brief note to say that I have closed a Request for Comment you initiated, at Talk:"Polish_death_camp"_controversy#RFC_on_"misnomer". Miłego dnia, Fish+Karate 13:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Flag
Hi, Staszek Lem.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hope you're doing well. Just wanted to let you know that the user Eckhardt Etheling has tried to merge the article Nav (Slavic folklore) into Boginka too, just like what they did with Rusalka. Seems like they want to convert all somewhat related existing articles into their own new one - under some obscure term. Just thought I'd let you know in case they keep trying this with those two or other pages, I'm not very active on Wikipedia lately.
- I am not trying to merge articles in those done by me. Just, what is the meaning of keeping poorly sourced articles like Rusalka (which has a lot of unsourced information and I have verified that even some sourced parts do not report what sources actually say) and Mavka (which is just a dialectal variant of Navia/Navka)? They are both variants of the Nymph-like beings called Boginka.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Eckhardt Etheling: They are both variants of the Nymph-like beings called Boginka -- who says so? In any case, please follow wikipedia rules: place the merge tag an wait for discussion. BTW, I know the mythology articles are disaster and I welcome your efforts, but we have disagreements to resolve. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hello Staszek Lem. Your account has been added to the "
New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
- URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the AfD and the plug on the 'Wehrmacht myth' op-ed at SS Marschiert AfD. Check out the comments too: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/Op-ed; they are…illuminating. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
"not a competition"
Hello. Here in this part of the sentence which you removed, I didn't imply it was a competition, and Kacprzyk came sixth, but that the other five winners of the award were those listed, willing to add some context for the reader (given that some of these names are blue links). I don't insist on mentioning these names, I'm simply clarifying the idea behind them. Also, I will add the inline citations at my earliest convenience, this is a rather easy task: I spent much more time on finding the rest of the sources, different from the own homepage. :) Bests, →Spiritia 09:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Staszek Lem. I see that you've changed Contiguity into a disambiguation page. Several articles link to that title. I've fixed the ones I could, but that leaves about 100 wikilinks leading to a dab rather than directly to an article. Most of them are about land contiguity (not covered by Contiguous zone) but there are a few other topics such as computer memory (not covered in Contiguous data storage; maybe Fragmentation (computing)?) and genetics. Please can you help us to fix the links? Thanks, Certes (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Certes:. OK. I will take a dig into it. Fragmentation (computing) is a better redirect for "Contiguous data storage". If there is no article on specfic kind of "contiguity" and you cannot write it right away, IMO it is better just delink the term, since it is a rather generic one. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- PS. I noticed somewhere the term is likely misused, such as in Gawthorpe (ward). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:BARONET. Baronets are an exception to the rule about "sir" in article titles, as William Coates, 1st Baronet would be utterly incorrect. Note that the title is only added at all if disambiguation is required. If it was not, the article would simply be at William Coates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
A project for you
Could you look at this editor's edits, including the article they created? As you can see from their edit summaries, they have rather strong feelings and antagonisms. After an initial block by NeilN and warnings by Drmies and a very stern one from me (do see their talk page), including a DS alert, they returned from their block unchanged. I don't trust anything they've done. They probably aren't all wrong, but I know that they are ignoring academic disputes on various of the issues they are dealing with and treating their beliefs as absolutely correct. If you don't have time perhaps you can suggest someone else who could. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
A pop-up window warning me no to use red links appeared while I was editing a page on en.wiki. However it seems it's not an accepted policy by the community, so just ignore my edits. Best regards.--Carnby (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Please comment on Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Reverts in human nature
I am not sure what your concern is, either in a policy sense or any other. There are two sources named, and I think there is no disputing, anyway, that what they say (which is quite simple and very well-known) is uncontroversial and notable. You are right that it is vague, but it is obviously a stub section that eventually needs to be expanded. Keep in mind you are deleting a whole section. I think the policy logic has to be that used for article stubs. I propose that the correct tagging should be on that basis and the material restored for some future editor to build up more. But also I intend to post on the talk page and I propose that the main discussion should be there. Please explain any concerns there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kombucha
Please comment on Talk:Cranial electrotherapy stimulation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cranial electrotherapy stimulation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)