Revision as of 02:34, 8 April 2007 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,665 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:06, 9 April 2007 edit undoGhirlandajo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers89,629 edits →Invasion: please refrain from personal attacksNext edit → | ||
Line 212: | Line 212: | ||
Well, you don't have to explain that to me... From my previous experiences with Russian editors it seems, that sourcing the articles (often without even a single word changed) usually makes them disappear from the talk pages. They often have lots of general remarks on the articles, but very seldom do they cite specific issues and sources. This was certainly the case with the article on the ], where there were lots of arguments at the talk page (often really heated and emotional), but none of them remained after I expanded the article and sourced it (and eventually pushed it through FAC). Especially after it turned out that the single reference cited at the talk page was simple some lunatic's invention (a guy tried to present the Poles in as bad light as possible, but it turned out that not a single statement in his book could be supported by evidence; in particular one of the editors raised an argument about Poles supposedly slaughtering unarmed Russian soldiers in an orthodox church, even though it turned out that the Russians were armed, there was no Orthodox church in Warsaw back then and that the entire story was but an invention). Same goes for a plethora of other Polish-Russian-related articles that are now FA, including the ones on the Warsaw Uprising, Katyn massacre and perhaps a dozen of others. I call the tactics ''escape forwards'' and it seems it works great. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | Well, you don't have to explain that to me... From my previous experiences with Russian editors it seems, that sourcing the articles (often without even a single word changed) usually makes them disappear from the talk pages. They often have lots of general remarks on the articles, but very seldom do they cite specific issues and sources. This was certainly the case with the article on the ], where there were lots of arguments at the talk page (often really heated and emotional), but none of them remained after I expanded the article and sourced it (and eventually pushed it through FAC). Especially after it turned out that the single reference cited at the talk page was simple some lunatic's invention (a guy tried to present the Poles in as bad light as possible, but it turned out that not a single statement in his book could be supported by evidence; in particular one of the editors raised an argument about Poles supposedly slaughtering unarmed Russian soldiers in an orthodox church, even though it turned out that the Russians were armed, there was no Orthodox church in Warsaw back then and that the entire story was but an invention). Same goes for a plethora of other Polish-Russian-related articles that are now FA, including the ones on the Warsaw Uprising, Katyn massacre and perhaps a dozen of others. I call the tactics ''escape forwards'' and it seems it works great. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
:Second.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 01:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | :Second.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 01:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
:Let's hope that ] will open a RfC and demand apologies for this unmotivated slur. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
==]== | ==]== |
Revision as of 17:06, 9 April 2007
2007Chekhov, Luther ... (anti-nationalism) ... Pets ... i.e. miscAh ... I hadn't made the connection, but I now see you, too, on Luther's talk page. Thanks for pointing this out - I also hadn't realized I'd been of any help there. I glanced at your user page ... thus the above reference to nationalism ... I don't care for it myself either ... Now I just need to convince the folks at an AfD that I've been involved with recently ... ;-) ... Keesiewonder 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC) My current Afd of interest regards the article on 'Thakur Sher Singh Parmar', not wikilinked to protect you a bit. I don't think they're really thinking I'm a bigot or anything; I guess it's a recent sore spot with me due to a bad experience in an online study group a month or so ago. That has all boiled over and I got an A in the class, so, never fear! :-) I expect the article will likely be deleted ... at least I hope so. Too bad, since I may very well like his work if I could find it ... My username is one of my dog's many nicknames. He's a Keeshond named Hermann. Some call the breed Kees for short, or Keesie. I've had him since he was a 10 week old pup and he's now 10. I learned how to read on Dr. Seuss books, so seem to have this habit of making up little dittys. One of the things this breed will do (at least the happy specimens) is cock their head to one side when listening to you. Hermann does this dramatically and often ... thus ... since he looks so intent on whatever I'm saying (yes, I'm alpha dog over two of these head-strong dogs), he quickly ended up as 'Keesiewonder.' Of course, my cat quickly coined, through me, 'Keesie-Blunder' ... Silly, I know. But you asked! :-) Keesiewonder 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks for frequenting that Afd (and for your compliments!). It'll be interesting to see what happens. The guy may be for real, and we're just not spelling his name "correctly" to find him in "English" sources. The part that makes it look bad is when the simple information, like a catalog number for a book, does not come forth from the people who care. Most of whom are "new" users with no user page. That makes it really seem like a hoax. If he were for real, it'd be very easy for someone to point me to a newspaper article or journal or book with him in it. Maybe I'll see if I can figure out how to search on India's WP to see if I can find him there. Or, maybe I'll do something better with my time ... ;-) Keesiewonder 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Precisely!Re "our" AfD, I don't usually do this much research for an AfD. In this case, I am since for some reason it struck my fancy, and I'm interested in learning more about India. Besides, though it is not really getting through, I'm trying to make a point with those who want the article kept now. (Why haven't I heard back from the U of Pune yet?????) I have asked my work colleague ... it'll be interesting to see what he says. He has family in India, and is someone I am about to work with a bit more closely on a project, so, all around, it is a nice opportunity to get to know him better. Of course, he just might think I'm crazy too! (I'm not ... ) Keesiewonder 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Head against brick wall - Thanks for your note. You gave me lots to think about. I expect once I get up to speed on the proposal, I'd agree with you nearly 100%. To be continued ... Keesiewonder 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks!WikiThanks per your help with Władysław II Jagiełło article!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Wither Martin Luther?We've got the article down to fighting weight and I've opened a discussion on what we may or may not have missed in the article. If we're all satisified, we can go into the final quality push before an FA nom. Come on by! 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Restoration literature"It's a fine article, though, and surely shouldn't be knocked for having its shirt buttons foppishly undone. Quite clearly, the buttons are all there" - that's a good point made and a lovely turn of phrase. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Error in Image:Poland Lithuania under Jogaila Jagiello.pngCrakow is a mispelling (per Talk:Kraków#Spelling_.2F_misspelling) - it should be changed to Kraków. And while you are at it, see Historical_demographics_of_Poland#Urban_demographics for other large cities of that period that should not be excluded from the map: Poznań, Wrocław, Gdańsk and Trakai should be added, see also this map for some others.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: ChekhovNo problem. I was rather stressed myself. All the best. Errabee 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Family tree helpHi! I noticed the Jogaila article you've worked on has a great family tree, and I thought something like that would really help the Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria article. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be getting on well with the syntax, so I need some help :( If you've written this part of the article, could you please also make an Ivan Alexander family tree according to this graph. If it's another editor, could you please inform him that I've asked? Thanks :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Fowler's prigYou were kind enough to copy Fowler's prig definition for me a while back User talk:Shtove#Fowler's prig. I pasted it into Prig, which may be set for deletion or transfer to Wiktionary. Any ideas on how to keep it here? I'd like to think WP has time for this definition, especially when the current editors of Fowler's don't.--Shtove 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Jogaila FACThere is a reason I have not nominated it myself and instead wanted to deal with the name issue first... :) If we can just settle on a name that everybody considers somewhat accepable, the FAC would be a smooth ride.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC) MeyendorffThis historian is familiar with obscure Russian and Byzantine records most historians have not looked at. He says Jogaila had the Orthodox name Jacob. I'm not inclined to assuming he's making it up ... he, as you have seen, takes it for granted. I'd be interested to hear if you find out more about it. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Error in Image:Polish and Lithuanian Conflict with Prussia. 1377-1435..pngYes, I enjoy pointing them out :> Seriously, great job with the map but it should be Dobrzyń not Dobryzń (mispelling). The issue of Nowogródek was raised by others, I believe - Nowagródek is rather strange. My suggestion: either use Polish Nowogródek or Russian Novogrudok. PS. On the subject of mapmaking: User:Zondor/Labelled Map Documentation-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
A well-deserved award :) What's next on your 'to do' list? If you have nothing else planned, on my userpage you can see a list of several old FAs that are in dire need of bringing up to the current standards, and would greatly benefit from your skills :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
heyhey, I can,t understand your comments: My current Afd of interest regards the article on 'Thakur Sher Singh Parmar', not wikilinked to protect you a bit. I don't think they're really thinking I'm a bigot or anything; I guess it's a recent sore spot with me due to a bad experience in an online study group a month or so ago. That has all boiled over and I got an A in the class, so, never fear! :-) I expect the article will likely be deleted ... at least I hope so. Too bad, since I may very well like his work if I could find it ... What do you mean by and in what context - I don't think they're really thinking I'm a bigot or anything; I guess it's a recent sore spot with me due to a bad experience in an online study group a month or so ago. Kushwah 14:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI; hope you're well. --Keesiewonder 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Re: Yes you will :)Hello. Yes FAC was closed before all aspects were finally discussed, but the main problems you solved already very nicely and professionally, I am also delighted that you will handle unsolved points. I will monitor them and deliver my opinion. Congratulation with FA, M.K. 08:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Thank youMy grateful thanks for your assistance with Jack Sheppard, which is now a featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Ha!qp10qp 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC) For furthering proper terminology. (I never send these unless there has been at least five glasses drunk!) Brendandh 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
PRIf you have a few minutes could you have a look at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Log from the Sea of Cortez. Your suggestions have been very helpful in the past, and since it isn't getting any attention I thought I'd bother you. Cheers, Yomangani 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC) George CalvertI wanted to thank you for working on the article. I'd love to hear, though, what your other concerns are so I can begin working on them. Mocko13 21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC) I'm a little ashamed to admit that I was bothered at first, but that was vanity making me stupid. The goal, after all, is to produce the best possible article, and your criticisms were well-founded. And anyway, I'm an amateur historian at best, especially when it comes to British history, and it's spectacular to have a trained eye focused on the historiography of the article. I've made some changes to the lead based on what you suggested, though I think I'm too close to the writing to know whether it really is helpful to a reader with little prior knowledge. The Chekhov article looks great, by the way. Mocko13 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Do you think it needs more work before FA? I'm sort of new to the process and am not sure, given the work done since the original nomination, whether it should be withdrawn. And your original oppose still stands. - Mocko13 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC) IguanodonHi Qp, Just saw your note on the FAC page. Feel free to edit it as you see fit (not that you need my consent, obviously, but I didn't want my comments on the FAC page to sound like you weren't welcome to have a go at it). Thanks for the comments, and any clarity you can add to the article for the general reader will be appreciated. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Narrative HistoryQp10qp: I posted this in response to your discussion re Dalrymple. Could you back me up on this one since Lao seems to have taken sole possession of WD's entry, and judging by his previous posts is a somewhat aggressive editor. Maybe you could contribute your own views to the entry as at the moment it seems to consist of Lao's views only: "I agree with Qp10qp that the term "popular historian" used by Lao Wai is unhelpful and unfair in this case since it is usually used about writers who rely on secondary sources while my copy of The Last Mughal has nearly one hundred pages of scholarly apparatus, has won a major history prize (the Duff Cooper) and has been widely praised for discovering a whole range of new primary sources in Urdu and Persian. How about we compromise with "narrative historian" a term which has been used about historians both in and out of academe such as Simon Schama, John Demos and Anthony Beevor? Lao is clearly a clever guy, but it seems to me that he has some sort of vendetta going here, as his contributions about Dalrymple have all been notably negative. I am new here, but I thought the idea was to attempt a voice of neutrality rather working off personal dislikes? --Aziz32 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)aziz I wish you would go ahead with some sort of edit of Dalrymple's page Qp10qp. You seem to have read more of his stuff than anyone else on this site, so even a modest reassessment by you would be useful, even if you don't take a full week to do it and examine every word he has written... AZIZ Copyedit requestIf you know a place I can request copyeditor (for improvement of English language), please let me. I am looking for sb to improve the quality of Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) (nominated for GA and peer review comments suggest copyediting for English good prose is needed).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is now a GA, thanks for the help! In some spare time, could you look over History of Poland (1945-1989) - some users commented that this FA (now on FARC) needs a copyedit.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:BLP courtesy deletionHi, is this proposal something you'd be interested in helping to write? Your insights at WP:ATT were very helpful. SlimVirgin 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Please help me understand Misplaced Pages:AttributionRe your comment at: Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Archive 8#Woo, I just quoted W:ATT for the first time! I would appreciate it if you would explain to me how you used the new policy and what exactly you liked about it that the previous policy didn't do. If you can help me understand that, it might help resolve the ongoing conflicts at Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Role of truth and Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Is this really policy?. Thanks in advance. --Coppertwig 23:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
HeyJust want to say thank you for your supportive comments; it's so kind of you, and it's really, really appreciated. SlimVirgin 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Belarus FACGo ahead and tell me what needs to be done, so I can get this monkey off my back and make Belarus an FA. User:Zscout370 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Problem with reference formattingI see that in your formatting of refs in Soviet invasions, you elimianted links to Google Print page views. Could you restore them? I know that virtually all books I cited had those links, now there are just unlinked page numbers.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
ATT pollBe ashamed of yourself! The poll is a collection of opinions, asked for free-form. My opinion certainly, and that of others, is more complex than Love ATT, Hate ATT, Neutral that you would impose on the !votes, and I went to some trouble to express exactly what I wanted to say. I guess I will now have to move it to "broad oppose" to have it counted at all, although I support most of ATT as language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
InvasionWell, you don't have to explain that to me... From my previous experiences with Russian editors it seems, that sourcing the articles (often without even a single word changed) usually makes them disappear from the talk pages. They often have lots of general remarks on the articles, but very seldom do they cite specific issues and sources. This was certainly the case with the article on the Warsaw Uprising (1794), where there were lots of arguments at the talk page (often really heated and emotional), but none of them remained after I expanded the article and sourced it (and eventually pushed it through FAC). Especially after it turned out that the single reference cited at the talk page was simple some lunatic's invention (a guy tried to present the Poles in as bad light as possible, but it turned out that not a single statement in his book could be supported by evidence; in particular one of the editors raised an argument about Poles supposedly slaughtering unarmed Russian soldiers in an orthodox church, even though it turned out that the Russians were armed, there was no Orthodox church in Warsaw back then and that the entire story was but an invention). Same goes for a plethora of other Polish-Russian-related articles that are now FA, including the ones on the Warsaw Uprising, Katyn massacre and perhaps a dozen of others. I call the tactics escape forwards and it seems it works great. //Halibutt 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject League of CopyeditorsPerhaps this project may be of interest to you? In other issues, I am looking for copyeditors for History of Poland (1945-1989) and Polonization. The first is on FARC and 'bad prose' is the last remaining issue; the second is simply bad prose and many remark on it often. On a sidenote, based on my HoP45-89 and few other articles, I have to say updating old FAs to modern standards (with inline refs and such) is like writing them all over again :) And thanks again for all the help with SIoP39, I reread the article today and in quite a few parts it read like a new article (and a better one, too :) ).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
|