Misplaced Pages

If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that, at my discretion, I will either:

1. seek community approval of my adminship through a modified RfC; (no consensus == no change) (see separate section for process)
2. choose to take the matter to ArbCom; (see separate section for process)
3. resign my powers "under a cloud" and possibly stand again for adminship at some later date of my choosing; (see separate section for process)

• once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria
• and the matter concerns use of my admin powers at this wiki rather than a non-admin editing concern (use the standard dispute resolution mechanisms), a use of CheckUser (use the ombudsman process, or take the matter to the Audit Subcommittee, as appropriate, if standard dispute resolution does not resolve the matter), or actions at another wiki (use the processes at that wiki).

The rest of this page fills out particulars and commits to certain processes in advance so as to reduce ambiguity or the possible perception that I will change the rules as I go along to get the desired outcome.

Note: This page has a talk page because I value input and feedback on this whole thing. There's some lively discussion there already, and you, gentle reader, are invited to comment as well.

The Recall Petition process

The petition shall operate as follows:

• A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be selected by me to make sure that the petition process itself is smooth and that the requirements for petitioners are satisfied.
• The petition start time will be constituted as when the first eligible petitioner announces intention to recall by posting on my talk page. Ineligible petitioners (as judged by me) will not start the process unless I choose to waive eligibility for that petitioner. Such waiver shall be binding. If it takes longer than 24 hours to find a clerk and begin the process, the petition start time will be constituted as when the page is created and ready for use.
• A page in my user space will be created with sections for certified, unknown, and uncertified petitioners.
• If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated, but is not required as a condition of participation in the petition process. Deleting, or arguing for deletion of, the petition page by a petitioner, however, shall cause that petitioner to be disqualified from certification of the petition, unless I explicitly waive that disqualification. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable.
• Additional sections may be added as the community desires for comments of whatever sort. These shall have no bearing on the petition outcome except to sway public opinion. The clerk is empowered to enforce decorum at the clerk's (and my) discretion, subject of course to public opinion not looking kindly on suppression of expression.
• I reserve the right to waive eligibility and numeric requirements at my sole discretion on a case by case basis. This means that I can deem a petition certified when it strictly would not have been. However this is only a waiver, it cannot make anyone ineligible or raise any numeric requirements. Waiver of requirements for one person does not waive them for others by default.
• The clerk will move petitioner signatures from unknown to certified or uncertified based on eligibility.
• After exactly 5 days the petition shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible petitioners. If at least 6 petitioners including the initiator are eligible, the petition shall be deemed certified and the next step of the process will be initiated. (the next step is one of the three, Modified RfC, self initiated RfAr, or resign "under a cloud" and stand for RfA at some later date of my choosing) as given above, at my choosing... the decision may be announced in advance of certification, at my option, but need not be.

The modified RfC process (choice 1)

This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The modified RfC will be constituted as follows:

• A page in my userspace will be created.
• Certification of the RfC will be waived.
• If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated but is not required as a condition of participation in the process. Arguing for deletion, however, shall cause that person's comments to be stricken or construed as favorable to retaining adminship, whichever is appropriate or more favourable to me, at my discretion. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable.
• A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be appointed to make sure that the RfC process itself goes smoothly, and to determine eligibility where appropriate. Preference would be given to the same clerk that clerked the petition, if that clerk is willing and if I feel they have done an adequate job.
• The RfC will be started by referencing the entire text of the recall petition
• Two questions will be included: Should I keep my adminship/Should I resign my adminship
• Anyone qualified to vote in an ArbCom election, as construed in the most recent previous one to the initiation of the petition, or one then ongoing, whichever is more favourable (looser voting requirements), can sign under either of these two questions. Those not qualified will have their signatures and comments moved to sections that make it clear what their views are, but that do not count toward the total.
• Any other sections desired may be added but will not have bearing on the outcome except to sway public opinion
• At the end of exactly 5 days the modified RfC shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible commenters. If a simple majority to retain exists, I will not resign. If tied, or if a majority does not exist, I shall resign. Resignation shall be construed to have been "under a cloud", and if I wish to regain my adminship I will have to stand again via the normal RfA process.
• Those that consider this not to be an RfC are welcome to give it whatever term they wish but these process steps will be used, and supersede standard RfC process where there is a conflict.
• The conclusion of the RfC after the outcome is certified and my action is taken, if any, will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including starting a regular RfC, initiating an ArbCom case, etc.

The RfAr process (choice 2)

This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The RfAr will be initiated as follows:

• I will initiate the case myself, perhaps with assistance from the petition clerk if the clerk is willing.
• I will name myself and the certified petitioners as parties.
• I will state that I feel sufficient notice has been given to all parties.
• I will incorporate, by reference, the petition, and ask that arbcom consider it as evidence.
• I will ask any arbitrators that were petitioners to recuse but leave that decision to their good judgement.
• I will otherwise cooperate in whatever way possible, answering any questions asked to the best of my ability.
• I reserve the right to present material in my own defense.
• I reserve the right to suggest that other persons be named as parties.
• I undertake to carry all this out in the shortest reasonably possible time consistent with external events.
• Final determination of whether to take the case rests with ArbCom but I will strongly recommend that the case be taken and I would certainly appreciate (but not require) petitioners to also so strongly urge/recommend as well.
• If ArbCom declines to take the case, that concludes the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases. I reserve the right, but not the obligation, to initiate either choice 1 or 3 in this case. (I will try to be reasonable)
• If ArbCom takes the case, their judgement on principles, findings, and remedies will be binding on me, I will not work to circumvent them. The conclusion of the case will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases.

Resignation (choice 3)

This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The resignation shall be constituted as "under a cloud" meaning that a re RfA has standard success criteria as then constituted by the community and that withdrawing midway through is not an option for regaining admin status. Only a successful RfA will suffice. I may choose to stand again for RfA immediately, at some later date of my own choosing, or never, as I deem appropriate.

Grace period

Any change in any provision of this that makes it more stringent to qualify a petition or participate in any other part of the process, or more likely to lead to an outcome more favourable to me shall have a 2 week "grace period" during which any recall initiated will be under the old terms. Any change that is of the opposite sense (easier to qualify/participate, less favourable to me) shall go into effect immediately.

No Double Jeopardy

Once this process concludes for matters raised by petitioners during an instance of this process, I will not honor a second recall request regarding the same matters. If however new matters arise, the community is welcome to initiate another recall.

No vexatious litigants

No petitioner may initiate or support a petition for my recall more than three times in any 365 day period. This does not apply to participation in a modified RfC.

Severability

This is about my commitment to the community to be accountable, not about a category membership. Thus, the provisions of this page shall survive if, for example, the CAT:AOTR (or successor, whatever named) is deleted, renamed, listified. etc., and under any other reasonable circumstances. Only my explicitly stated withdrawal from this commitment itself will suffice.

No withdrawal

I do not intend to withdraw but that's an intent, not a promise. However, I promise not to withdraw to escape the consequences of this commitment. The only time I will withdraw from this category is if no recall is currently underway. This is subject to the same 2 week grace period as the eligibility or any other changes, so any withdrawal has at least 2 weeks to go into effect.

Notes

1. Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse.
2. ^ This is the colloquial term for what is more formally described as "under controversial circumstances", see, for example this ArbCom principle
3. Lar's criteria include the requirements:
   • that if the user calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least two weeks. This does not apply to non admins.
   • that if the user calling for recall is a non admin, the user must have at least 4 months edit history under that ID or clearly connected and publicly disclosed related IDs, and at least 500 mainspace contributions, at least 100 of which must be substantive article improvements, and must have had no significant blocks for disruptive behaviour within the last 4 months.
   Lar reserves the right to impose additional criteria at any time. However Lar commits that any criteria changes which remove anyone from the eligibility list will not go into effect until two weeks have elapsed from the time of the diff making the change (the "grace period"), to give folk time to get a recall started under the old criteria if they so desire, and further, that criteria will not be changed to remove anyone during the time of an active recall (starting from when notice is given by first petitioner, ending when the petition has been certified or decertified, in effect extending any 2 week grace period as necessary) Changes which only add eligibility, and do not remove anyone, are not subject to this limitation.
4. If you spot holes, now would be a good time to point them out so they can be fixed.

Merge

How do we merge two articles created without the knowledge of the other because of a one letter, not at the Western keyboard?

Please compare: The Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow and Kraków Academy of Fine Arts Greetings Poeticbent 00:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Na marginesie

Panie Piotrze, w żadnym atlasie na kontynencie północno-amerykańskim nie pisze się naszego miasta "Cracow", ani "Kraków". Pisownia tego typu należy do błędów robionych przez rodaków, z czym zetknąłem się będąc w Krakowie z wizytą. Jedyną praktykowaną w atlasach pisownią jest Krakow. Mam zamiar zrobić „merge” obu stron, czyli tej, stworzonej przez Pana oraz mojej, pod końcowym tytułem „The Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow”. Poeticbent 02:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge (2)

Check WP:MERGE for merging. It would be useful to see what's the official name (as used by the school in question itself). As for Kraków, well... that's a long story; IIRC the official name of the city in English is now 'Krakow' but since it's so close to 'Kraków' the latter one is used on Wiki. Since it doesn't seem to be too controversial, I'd suggest we should not bother changing it - but if you disagree, I'd suggest seeking input from editors at WP:PWNB.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been living in North-America for so long I forgot there was a controversy surrounding the English spelling of the name Krakow... or Kraków... or Cracow. The spelling I'm accustomed to has been around for at least 50 years. That's why, if I had a chance of finding out about your page created under a Polish name I wouldn't have bothered wasting time creating a new one just like that with its English spelling. However, I think we can use your original idea, but also create a bunch of redirection pages including all possible alternate spellings for those who care to search for it in Misplaced Pages like I did (including Jan Matejko - though not Matejko's - Academy of Fine Arts). What do you think? Poeticbent 07:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The proper spelling, "Kraków", is listed in The Canadian Oxford School Atlas Fifth Edidtion 1985, so there's a good point of reference. I wonder, would you agree to a new name of The Academy of Fine Arts, Kraków? If not, we could "redirect" all other names to Kraków Academy of Fine Arts.

See also Krakow (disambiguation). Greetings Poeticbent 16:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lepiej pozno niz wcale spojrzalem na en oficjalna strone akademii: nazywaja siebie Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow - i tam powinnismmy przeniesc zmergowany artykul, tworzac redirecty z wszystkiego innego co nam przyjdzie do glowy.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Panie Piotrze, moim zdaniem nie powinniśmy lansować pisowni, która nie jest praktykowana w języku angielskim na kontynencie amerykańskim. Pisałem wcześniej na temat tego, jak niektórzy krakowianie lansują nazwę miasta jako "Cracow", chociaż jest to pisownia wychodząca z użycia. Czy w Wikipedii nie powinniśmy być w gramatycznej czołówce? Pozdrawiam i czekam na reakcję. Poeticbent 17:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Zwykle jestem przeciwny 'Cracow', ale jeśli to jest oficjalna nazwa stosowana przez instytucje w danym języku, to jest to nazwa którą powinnyśmy stosować w tym języku. Jeśli chcemy więcej opinii, WP:PWNB byłoby dobrym miejscem to dyskusji.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Studenci zagraniczni referowani są po angielsku do The Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Arts - Krakow, Poland na tej stronie. Nie wiem co mam o tym wszystkim sądzić? Urodziłem się w Krakowie i nie lubię przeinaczanych nazw mojego rodzinnego miasta... Proszę samemu zadecydować. Poeticbent 17:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jak napisalem, mysle, ze dobrze byloby zasiegnac opinii innych na WP:PWNB.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Będę wdzięczny, jeżeli sam Pan wystąpi z tą kwestią na WP:PWNB. Ja dostosuję się do końcowej decyzji innych, bo przedstawiłem już w szczegółach mój punkt widzenia. Poza tym, nie zauważyłem śladów podobnej dyskusji na forum i nie wiem, czy mogę się spodziewać racjonalnej sugestii w tej sprawie. Pozdrawiam Poeticbent 21:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Spróbujmy zredagować wspólny list

Panie Piotrze. Proszę zajrzeć na moją stronę User_talk:Poeticbent. Znajduje się tam szkic listu e-mail, który możemy wysłać za Pana pośrednictwem do Akademii Sztuk Pięknych w Krakowie. Proszę wypowiedzieć się w sprawie mojego pomysłu wysłania go bezpośrednio do uczelni. Proszę także zweryfikować i uzupełnić jego treść. Pozdrawiam Poeticbent 15:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dziękuję za poparcie mojej propozycji. Jednak preferuję aby Pan wysłał ten list do Akademii, gdyż pragnę pozostać w tym wypadku osobą anonimową. Poeticbent 17:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeszcze jedno małe słówko w tej samej sprawie. Proszę mnie łaskawie poinformować, jak otrzyma Pan wiadomość z Akademii Sztuk Pięknych w sprawie tytułu strony. Pozdrawiam Poeticbent 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Troll

Zobacz dokonania User:Nasz i twórczy wkład 75.4.119.198 - na pl i na en. Picus viridis 01:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jaka jest procedura banowania na enwiki? Koleś zdaje się z "Nowych Aten" cytaty wkleja: . Picus viridis 18:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Wstukałem coś (myślę, że pilnego) w Twojej dyskusji na pl.wiki. pozdro Gau, 19:26, 24 November 2006 (CET)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lapanka Warszawa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lapanka Warszawa.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 19:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Taras Fedorowicz

Witam. Wielu wikipedystów z polskiej wiki jest zbulwersowanych edycjami Irpena, który na siłę forsuje marksistowską wizję powstania Fedorowicza. Dodatkowo istnieje podejrzenie złamania zasady 3 revertów, na co angielska administracja wcale nie zareagowała. czy możesz coś z tym zrobić? Pozdrawiam Mathiasrex 22:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, why did this friend of yours whimsically reverted my copyediting and called that "-POV". Please do not recruit editors to revert wars and at least explain them not to revert on the whim when you do. Also, I asked you to use English in enwiki. What's the problem in sticking to English? --Irpen 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I notice you teach youf friends how to report me to 3RR. Nice. But out of decensy, if you feel I violated 3RR, report me yourself rather than inciting others to act as your proxies as you have done in the past many times. Sign your own name under your actions. --Irpen 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

On 25 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ivan Sulyma, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Lain FAC

Hello Prokonsul. Thanks for commenting on the Lain FAC. I've added two books and a study, and was wondering if you would like to change your vote to supports, or would still need other changes made.--SidiLemine 14:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A npov comparison issue

As I have been accused of "anti-Russianism", and I saw that you are somehow interested in this specific Tatiana question, could you kindly check the diff , compare those two versions and check if you see any NPOV issuen in their differences. And comment to its talkpage about such and the differences - In each of those details, how would you write a NPOV version? Shilkanni 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not the person accused above in the "anti-Russianism" issue, I see that my edits on Princess Tatiana of Russia have been misrepresented to you nonetheless. I do not believe that the Mukhraneli were dynastically unequal to the Romanovs, during or after the Russian Empire. I do believe that they were treated as legally unequal by Nicholas II in 1911. But that decision was reversed by Vladimir Kirilovich Romanov in 1948. Nicholas II made one decision, and Vladmir, in the claimed capacity as emperor de jure, made another -- and cited specific research as the basis for that reversal. There are simply no contemporaneous sources that defined the 1911 marriage as legally equal, and there is enormous evidence that it was not considered equal. This issue has been extensively discussed, but after the Frederiks Memo was published in the West in the late 1990s (it was an intra-dynastic communication, not published during the Empire), no serious historian any longer disputes that the Bagration-Mukhranskys were only allowed to inter-marry with Romanovs on a non-dynastic basis at that time. I personally believe that they were unfairly treated by Russia in defiance of the Treaty of Georgievsk, but Misplaced Pages should state how the family was viewed then -- and now, rather than project current views backward. As for "anti-Georgian", a quick glance at the argument that raised this issue will show you immediately who has really been making up all kinds of reasons to invalidate the dynastic claim of the Vladimirovichi pretender Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, whose rival bases his opposition on the argument that the family of Maria's Georgian mother, Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhransky, was not dynastically equal to the Romanovs when the couple married in 1948. Lethiere 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Partisan article

Hey you posted on the Soviet partisans "It amazes me to what lenght you will go to avoid informing the reader of the darker sides of SU, such as the attrocities commited by the Soviet partisans in Poland. This is an important part of their activities, and most certainly deserves a section in this article." Reading that, you may want to see the new material I just posted on the talk page. Therefore I agree with this. --Pudeo (Talk) 23:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

On 26 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taras Fedorovych, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Jak stworzyć subkategorię ?

Witam ! Bardzo dziękuję za wiadomość . Chętnie pomogę rozwijać wiedzę o Polsce i Polakach na angielskiej wikipedii . Mój "konik" to piłka nożna . Tworzę artykuły (?) o niektórych zawodnikach grających w Orange Ekstraklasa. Mam prośbę...Czy mógłby Pan mi pomóc w utworzeniu subkategorii "Zawisza Bydgoszcz players" w kategorii "Zawisza Bydgoscz" ? Ah..i jeszcze jedno...Mógłby Pan zerknąć na artykuł(znowu nie wiem , czy mogę nazwać to artykułem:-)) Klan (TV series) . Żąda się ode mnie cytatu , że "Klan" jest pokazywany w TVP1 . Jak mam to udowodnić ? Z góry dziękuję za pomoc

User:Bartekos

DYK

On November 26, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolution, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

interest anywhere in Polish "cabal"?

I created an article to tell about the Saxony-Gessaphe family. Its ONE characteristic is that they seem to be the heirs of Polish and Lithuanian throne according to the last PLC constitution. Of course this is an esoterica, but I still think that possibly some Polish editors would be interested also in that sort of esoterica (you apparently do not have a ready royal family lurking anywhere else, and at least these persons are catholic, whereas Nicholas II of Poland's heirs are orthodox), and that the possible pretender of Polish throne would be an interesting enough article to some to improve it and give perspective from Poland. I leave it to your consideration (and to you to do the informing work) what would be best way to inform relevant Polish editors about it. And, by the way, can anyone check the PLC succession laws, if they require equal marriages within the "royal dynasty". ObRoy 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Już to skierowałem do pl:Polscy samozwańcy, tam się gromadzi takich oryginałów :) A.J. 10:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Photographs of copyrighted works

There is already clear and established policy regarding this on Commons; see Commons:Derivative works. It just isn't enforced very well yet, because most people don't seem to know about this wrinkle of copyright law. Yes, the images in Modern art of the Picasso sculpture and the array of Warhol Campbell's Soup prints should never have been uploaded to Commons, because the works they depict are copyrighted. At a minimum, source information needs to be provided for both the photograph and the subject in the photograph, to assess whether that subject is copyrighted. It may be possible to justify the fair use of those images on Misplaced Pages, however, so consider that many images that should be removed from Commons may be permissibly uploaded here. Postdlf 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the editor above is correct, for this reason. Badagnani 11:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

could someone translate -> article here too_article_here_too-2006-11-28T12:06:00.000Z">

Hi. sorry, if it feels that I am stalking you, but I observed an interesting-looking link in your talkpage here above: pl:Polscy samozwańcy. I do not understand Polish properly, so I can only say that the article there seems interesting and presumably contains MUCH material about royal pretensions of some families. Could someone (=you?) translate that article to more or less fluent English and make it an article here in English Misplaced Pages? Because at least I would like to see precisely what it says. Shilkanni 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)_article_here_too"> _article_here_too">

Filharmonie i opery

Kiedy będziesz miał czas to trzeba uzupełnić artykuł http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_concert_halls o filharmonie w Polsce: http://pl.wikipedia.org/Filharmonia. Chyba wszystkie inne kraje europejskie mają wypisane, tylko Polska nie. To samo z operami: trzeba je wpisać w http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_opera_houses ze spisu: http://pl.wikipedia.org/Polskie_teatry_operowe. Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Poyeb Picus viridis 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:SUP

Thanks for your advice on the downstream processing student project. I have updated the WP:SUP page as you requested, and my students have mostly completed their training assignments: 1) establishing a user account and page 2) adding a small useful edit to an article 3) adding references to an article. Their deadline for constructing their own articles is Dec. 3 at midnight EST (UTC - 5). During the following week their classmates will review the article on the discussion page and suggest changes. Yes, I know this differs from the usual Misplaced Pages process of bold edits, but IMHO it better promotes critical thinking by the original writer, helps me evaluate the original writer's contribution more easily, and will produce similar short-term improvements to the articles.

I would like your help in finding someone to demonstrate a thorough critical review of an article, ideally the article on Downstream_processing that I have begun to edit as my own contribution to the project. I thought immediately of Milton Beychok but he seems so busy that I hesitate to bother him. Can you suggest someone else, ideally among the Wikipedian chemical engineers or Wikipedian chemists ? (sorry, could not figure out how to make internal link to these category pages)

As a relative newcomer to Wikipedian customs I am unsure if this request is out of line; if it is please forgive - Thank you! susato 19:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

EveWiki

From --> Eve-Wiki --> User:Ronoa

Hey Piotrus, I'm contacting you to get the lowdown on the eve-wiki, i've read the rules, and they seem to be contradictory. Can you take a look at the skills and Accessories section, I started working on it, but now i'm getting that sinking feeling that maybe I'm linking things improperly.

Signpost updated for November 27th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the star.

Thank you for the Star; if I find time, I'll continue contributing to similar articles - incl. 'Red Army “Liberation Campaign” of 1939'.Constanz - Talk 10:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should discourage tendentious editors from participating in Misplaced Pages. Piotr's ongoing attempts to encourage them in spreading their POV around should be reprimanded in the strongest terms possible. This is the very opposite of Misplaced Pages's ideals of neutrality and accuracy. --Ghirla 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But Ghirla, I am sure I never encouraged you, did I? ;p -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, encouraged to what? --Ghirla 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know?

On 29 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Political Instability Task Force, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 17:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Poland_Map_Time_19390925.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Poland_Map_Time_19390925.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —`'mikkanarxi 07:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked over all related Misplaced Pages articles hoping to be able to give you my support in this matter, but came to the conclusion that the case is practically indefensible. I trust you'll be able to approach User:Halibutt to produce a map just like that, since it makes such a good impression. Greetings Poeticbent 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Under-the-carpet maneuvers

Piotr, don't expect I have not seen your disgraceful maneuvres here. If you think WP:PAIN is a place for denouncing your opponents, where your content disputes will be solved by blocking your opponent behind his back, you are greatly mistaken. I hope that Misplaced Pages has grown up from the period when such things were possible (my block log is the best evidence that they used to be connived some time ago). Your deliberate choice of offensive language ("for a few months Ghirla has 'lied low'" - what is this??) has been pretty disgraceful. I hope you are a little shame-faced over the whole issue. --Ghirla 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Ghirla, Misplaced Pages is now hopefully entering a mature phase where violations of WP:CIV will be treated as seriously as violations of WP:3RR. If you don't learn how to behave in a civil manner - and thus stop accusing me (and others) of trolling, vandalism, nationalism and such - you may find yourself blocked. I do hope that you will go back to writing great articles on Russian culture and stop your disruptive edits on Polish-Russian relations, where you clearly support controversial revisionist views (Katyn faked by CIA, etc.) with very offensive edit summaries and discussion posts. I don't want to get you blocked if you reform and behave, Ghirla - but I cannot allow anybody, friend or foe, to ignore basic rules of civility on this project.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is your arrogant, uncooperative attitude and proclivity for incivil threats (as evidenced above) that may get you blocked. After several months when you "lied low" (to borrow your phrase), I see you continue to champion revisionist views of European history, and quite frantically at that. Your whole manner of behaviour - denouncing an opponent behind his back, so that he may be purged - reminds me of recent Soviet history. If you still fail to see that you have earned the reputation of the champion of Molobos and Jaakkos throughout Misplaced Pages, I feel genuinely sorry for you. Best, Ghirla 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, how this situation reminds me then "well known" contributor user:Halibutt (probably friend of P.P.) tried to stage case against me in PAIN, thanks God there are admins, who can clearly separate provocations. I believe under-the-carpet maneuvers is quite a live here too. M.K. 17:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I don't have a habit of removing personal attacks and slurs from my talk page, unless they are very offensive. I will not reply to the baseless accusations above, but I will keep them as a proof for possible dispute resolution in the future. Ghirla, M.K - if you want to contribute more evidence, by all means, please continue your offensive comments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is only one thing worse than politics: Metapolitics. When people use political maneuvers to discuss politics. This is absolutely scary. When did revisionist become pejorative?--SidiLemine 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, Piotrus fled this discussion to post yet another slur against me here. The case is hopeless. Sigh... --Ghirla 18:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you meant by your comment on my talk page - could you clarify it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not much, actually. I just tumbled across this discussion and saw that in two sentences, you guys managed to accuse each other of having god-knows-what POV, relating to a (presumeably) long dead political situation. That doing, you threatened each other of taking formal action. I'm not saying any of you is wrong. Only that this kind of situation is the reason why I took the (controversial, I know) vow of staying out of politicsof any kind when I'm not forced into it. I can only guess I made myself (at least) two ennemies by putting my finger into this conversation; but if it keeps you from tearing each other apart, well, what the heck.--SidiLemine 20:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you are so strict about incivility as you profess, why don't you report your friends Darwinek on WP:PAIN? He accuses me of vandalism on daily basis. --Ghirla 11:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Because as far as I can see what you do borders on that definition, Ghirla.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Piotrus, if you think you have a valid grievance against Ghirla please take it to dispute resolution, but be aware that as far as I can tell you will probably be wasting your time - I suspect that any further agitation on your part will backfire. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

From talk page of SidiLemine: I certainly don't mind any mediation, in fact, I welcome help and comments from other editors - which is why I started a discussion at ANI seeking input - and there Ghirlandajo mentioned the discussion on my talk page you commented at and called your edit (presumably, see below) a 'reprimand of my behaviour'. Thus I wanted to clarify if you indeed support him and reprimand me, or did he misintepret your post; you may want to clarify that at ANI (to be more specific, Ghirla wrote: Within last hour or so, your behaviour was reprimanded by several wikipedians on your talk page. Several equals to him, M.K. and presumably you... :/ -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would gladly help with mediation if I saw an issue, and not a fight. Please point an issue related to an article. For my previous comment, I was in fact reprimanding both of you. I think that, regardless of policies et al., you weren't being nice to each other, period. I was raised in the idea theat if you are going to hit someone, insults and threats not only will harm your image and give your opponent a headstart in the coming fight, but will actually minimize the effect of your blows. This is why I despise threats and insults thoroughly, and think that there is always a way to get out of an argument politely, while smiling and without loosing face. Many people today think of diplomacy in the UN way, a tomfoolery for powerless emissaries in frocks and powdered wigs. I think about it in the east asian/west african way, as a tool to bewilder and impress declared ennemies. anyway, whatever.--SidiLemine 12:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Boys, this is getting way too hostile, and spiraling out of control. Sure a little sarcastic contention now and then can be cathartic and beneficial. It even lets one let off some steam. It can even be a little entertaining to those of us "involved". But once in a while it gets way, way, overboard. IMHO, that's where this is at the moment. It would be a good idea to back off and chill. It really would be! Dr. Dan 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sida, Dan: I have thousands of article to write and edit :) If there are no further insults against me and other editors on the pages like Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) I see no need to continue this thread here, at ANI or to take the matter to ArbCom. I do sincerly believe that most people can resolve disputes in a civil way, or at least politely agree to disagree and try not to antagonize each other.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, now walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. Dr. Dan 20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's my plan - as long as others don't hinder me by, for example, accusing me of vandalism and trolling again. Such accusations make it somewhat more difficult to concentrate on peaceful editing... oh, Dr. Dan, while I appreciate your comments here, I wonder if you had offered any advice to Ghirladnajo and M.K, too?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)