Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Thanks again! -- ] <small>]</small> 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again! -- ] <small>]</small> 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
== Spelling ==
Hi, I read the article on ]. I thought I might notify you that it is "amendment" not ammendment. Besides, you seem to miss commas in some places. Anyway, the article was quite good.--] 10:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
To remind me not to take things too seriously around here!
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:
seek community approval of my adminship through a modified RfC; (no consensus == no change) (see separate section for process)
choose to take the matter to ArbCom; (see separate section for process)
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
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.
^ This is the colloquial term for what is more formally described as "under controversial circumstances", see, for example this ArbCom principle
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.
If you spot holes, now would be a good time to point them out so they can be fixed.
Casimirus the Great (East Europe)
Na angielskojęzycznej wikipedii jesteśmy tak nieliczni że upieranie się przy Polskim nazewnictwie monarchów (nawet jeżeli one poprawne) to trochę jak zawracanie biegu rzeki za pomoca kija :/ Mieciu K16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Piotrus, and thank you for the supportive vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! - Kukini16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for removing your comment about the "Polish cabal". That's a term that I continue to find personally offensive, and I wish everyone would stop using it. It meant a lot to me to see that you reconsidered the wisdom of using it on the talk page. :) --Elonka18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. And let me add here that I bear no ill will against you or any editors that may disagree with me. I also fully realize this is an English Misplaced Pages and we should use English, however in some cases I believe Polish language is appopriate, especially when given the choice of using Polish or inventing new English term/chosing from several without any dominant one. If you feel I am acting uncivil or in bad faith, or I am abusing my admin powers, you are more then welcome to ask me for clarification or ask others for mediation or comments via WP:DR or WP:ANI.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus18:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply. As a further act of good faith, would you be willing to reconsider your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Requested moves, where you accused me of slander and non-consensus page moves? It's probably the comment of yours towards me which I have the most trouble forgiving, since I place great stock in my integrity. It would mean a lot to me if you would consider either removing it, refactoring it, or apologizing for it at the location. --Elonka19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Katowice i... nasza metropolia
Właśnie moim celem na en.Wikipedii jest jak najlepsze i obszerniejsze opisanie Katowic oraz GZM-u. Postaram się co jakiś czas przetłumaczyć i rozszerzyć artykuły o naszym mieście i całym obszarze miejskim w miarę moich sił i czasu. Pozdrawiam :) LUCPOL23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I am having difficulty locating source for the "cultural impact" of the serries. Any ideas where to look (preferably professional reviews)? --Catout14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
A big pixelated WikiThanks for the Barnstar! Now, please, can you suggest a more interesting nomination? :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 02:23
Wikibreak
Could you do me a fovour and block my user account for two weeks or more? I am currently writing my master's degree and I need a wikibreak. Regards 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mieciu K (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Typically accounts otherwise in good standing are not blocked to enforce wikibreaks. It clutters up the blocklogs and can lead to confusion. There are tools on the net that you can use (such as netnanny) to self enforce unreachability if you so desire... hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Henryk Wolinski.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.
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.
On June 18, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henryk Woliński, 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.
I've responded to your comment; if you could perhaps clarify the nature of the map you're looking for and whether the one I have available would be acceptable to you, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin06:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"Democratic"
Piotrus, please, why do you have to push this into PSW? This is totally hypothetical. It was likely to be a democracy in a sense that there would have been elections and stuff rather than the monarchy. It still could or could not become a dictatorship, as Poland became later. Also democratic country and "democracy" are two very different things. The latter is possibly true (elections and voting, we don't know how open and fair though). The former (democratic), is a hypothesis, and a highly questionable one. Poland's minorities didn't see it "democratic" and we have no idea on how democratic a mega-state would have been. There is no doubt that it would have been Polish lead, while Polish-dominated would have been more exact IMO (still I am not pushing it). --Irpen20:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, would you please try to avoid reverts with no edit summary? I am occasionally guilty of the same sin but please try to keep this down. Having to revert another editor is already enough an aggravation. No need to add an insult to an injury. --Irpen18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You may like to show your involvment in this project with a userbox I've created and saved into my userspace for now. It's likely to change (and indeed you are most welcome to try and improve it), so it's probably best not to subst it for now. The code you need is {{User:Xyrael/Templates/User WikiProject Awareness}}; thanks for your continued interest in this project. --Xyrael21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
re: Category:Polish social activists to Category:Polish activists (Cfd, your nom.)
Didn't quite follow why there isn't a distiction between social and political types of activists on this one. Drop me an email. Thanks. // FrankB23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The footnote is a good reference here, it says that Russia and Austria treated Poles with hostility but after 1867 Austria treated Poles well, and this alliance with Russia ended.
--Molobo11:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
About See also
You once said in the Talk:Transhumanism page that according to a Misplaced Pages rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into the main body of the article 2) if something is in the main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. I was wondering if there was any kind of stated policy to the effect? --Loremaster14:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Polsko-Bolszewicka wojna
Przy okazji przejrzałem jeden z artykułów cytowanych przez Irpena na babelfish i znalazłem kilka ciekawych fragmentów:
But Lenin, who strove for peaceful respite by any price for regrouping of forces before the new stage of world revolution, proposed to Poles "mini- Brest" - in addition to those earth, which they after all obtained, the even present Khmel'nitskiy, Minsk and the part of the Zhitomir of regions.the Polish camp panic ruled. Many ran away from Warsaw to the West, Seym attempted to agree with the Bolsheviks about the peace or the armistice on any conditions. But now already in Moscow they did not want peace.
To z artykułu gdzie jest przytaczany przez Irpena fragment o paradzie w Kijowie. Warto dodać te fragmenty do artykułu o wojnie Polsko-Bolszewickiej
--Molobo16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikisource account
I just noticed the question on you WS user page. When the the great language split occured developer movesd article to the new subdomains the preserve their history. So your old account stil exists at oldwikisource:User:Piotrus, but when you signed up for a new account at the en.WS subdomain all your contributions where automagically reattributed to you and it seem as if your account had been deleted when it had actually never existed there.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk18:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by fixed? I imagine universal login would address all issues, but I am not sure what you are particularly refering to.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk19:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No you didn't lose it is still there. It is only the contributions attached to it were moved to the appropriate subdomains depending on what language they were in. The actual user page is still where it always was.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk19:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You may not have been aware that we already have Category:Streets and squares by city. This category is effectively a duplicate and what is the point of having a separate category with the word "names" in the title? I see little value in this category, and the fact that it has started with two cities in Eastern Europe at this late stage shows that it is eccentric. Streets can be also categorised by country within Category:Roads by country. That system is well established too. I have proposed a merger and would ask you to consider that option. Chicheley23:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Edit warring
You reverted twice in under two hours today, here, adding fuel to the fire of what's becoming another nasty edit war over there. I've blocked Sciurinæ and Molobo for warring tonight, perhaps I'll go warn Ghirla and Irpen for their part in the warring also, but of all people, can you, as an admin, always refrain from this edit warring. Of all people, you know that partisan rancor rules the world of dozens of Polish and German related articles. At the first sign of a conflict, why not use WP:DR (it's what it's there for) and try mediation or file an RFC. When those don't work, go to arbitration. God knows we don't need any more of this edit warring. Dmcdevit·t06:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I must admit disappointment at your response. You were disappointed (I hope) that Ghirlandajo chose, rather than to respond to my reasoned request to stop edit warring, to say why it was okay based on the misbehavior of others, citing edit warring by you and Molobo. I must say I find it strange then that your response to me is to completely skirt the issue I raised with you, your edit warring, and instead to defend your actions on the basis of the misconduct of others, namely Ghirladajo. That's wrong; edit warring is wrong and disruptive, and it is not acceptable at all ever, even in the face of likewise edit warring. I have in no way condoned Ghirla's editing, so I have no idea what your response was for, other than to deflect my own constructive criticism. To put it bluntly, this is what I would prefer to see happen: 1) Piotrus doesn't edit war, and doesn't defend edit warring, 2) Piotrus follows my advice about dispute resolution. Dispute resolution doesn't mean telling the person who suggested it about Ghirla's misconduct, it means actively filing an RFC (which isn't a year and a half old) or making the case to arbcom, just as you did to me. Also, please avoid usage of the word slander, as it has legal implications that are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. If you think it was a falsehood, or a malicious falsehood at that, just say it. To answer your question about Molobo's "incivily," (sorry about my embarassing typo :) I gave an example on his talk page with the block. He made a comment accusing those he was in a content dispute with of vandalism and bad faith. Dmcdevit·t01:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Soltyk
Hi Piotrus, the image was uploaded under the correct name from commons. However, it was deleted from commons by Essjay. I will not be able to undo the image deletion as I'm not an admin on Commons. Logically, since I c-uploaded, it shd be available on WP as well - however, I'm not sure if image undeletion can be done with retrospective effect. My guess is that it cannot be. let me check. Meanwhile I have found another replacement from Commons and put it in the article. It'd be great if you can let me know if this is the same/similar image. Else, you may want to take it directly with Essjay. --Gurubrahma18:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, in several pages that I monitor, I see that you have been tossing the word "slander" around quite often. I realize that English is not your first language, but, as I have advised you before, I would remind you that the term is considered uncivil. To quote from the Misplaced Pages:Civility policy page, it contributes to an uncivil environment by "calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute. I strongly recommend that you stop using the term in the future, and I would also urge you to review some of your recent comments to remove the term and anything else that might be regarded as uncivil or as a personal attack. --Elonka18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree that this is a strong word and should be used with caution. However I believe I have the right to defend myself against the recent series of false accusations/misunderstandings/lies/etc. which can be summarized by the single word (slander). What other word would you propose I use to describe such activities? I am open for a 'politically correct' suggestions, but for now when I see wolf, I cry wolf. There is a treshold at which point such personal attacks as I have been facing recently stop being a nuisance I can ignore and hope that they go away and become serious enough that they start intefering with the work of myself and of others editors, and at that point I will not hesitate to address the matter; however unlike most of my opponents you will note that I don't engage in badmouthing other people in talk without providing evidence, but I pursue the WP:DR process. That said, have you considered addressing the incivility of editors such as Ghirla - or do you think that they have the right to make presonal attacks against me and I don't have the right to defend myself against them?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus19:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
As an alternative to the word "slander", I would suggest "defaming". As for your above comment, I would point out that in one sentence that you said that you "don't engage in badmouthing other people without providing evidence", but in the next sentence you accused another editor, Ghirla, of incivility and making personal attacks against you -- but you did not provide any evidence. May I point out that you seem to do this quite often? --Elonka19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Defamation redirects to Slander and libel; but if you, a native speaker, think this is a less inflammatory term I will use it from now on. As for Ghirla, you say that I did not provide any evidence. I'd have think you'd stumble upon the evidence of his incivility several times (I have quoted it several times in the past few days), but in case you have missed it, would you prefer: set A (his RfC and the warning from ArbCom), set B (how he ignores and deletes warnings he receives from other people (, , - those are just three examples from the last few days, and they by no means represent any irregularity in his behaviour)), set C (his comments 1 and 3 at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Irpen) or Set D - his contributions (please pay attention to edit summaries). I have to say I am very suprised that an editor such sensitive to civility and good conduct as you would defend Ghirla.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the links, though I would point out that your last sentence again perplexes me, because I did not defend Ghirla. --Elonka19:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It is my interpretation of some of your posts that you bring examples of how I criticize Ghirla's incivility and ignoring his incivil attacks you say that I am making personal attacks or being incivil (by being critical of him). Example 1: One individual who raised questions about the Polish issue was accused by Piotrus of a "racist attack" (now refactored, see our mediation case for source). Example 2: your latest thread on my userpage. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) that you disapproved of my usage of 'slander' at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Irpen, where I used it to describe the evidently s... defamatory posts by Ghirla. If I was mistaken, and you don't approve of his action/tone/etc., perhaps you'd like to point it out at some place, especially considering how you criticized my critique of his "racial/ethnic attack" as mentioned above? If you could reform Ghirla, you'd do a great service to our community (as this is desired by scores of people, up to ArbCom members who issued him a warning).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, you got me wrong. I know very little about Ghirla, and have only been casually following the Irpen RfC. I don't read everything at the Poland noticeboard, but would just lightly scan (there's a lot of info there and it badly needs archiving again, btw). My accusations of you for incivility are specifically focused towards things that you said, regardless of whether or not you felt that the language was justified. I regard the term "racist attack" uncivil, along the lines of using the word "slander". I also see the term as inappropriate to use in the Polish question, because Poles aren't a race. So, accusing someone of a racist attack (especially when all they were doing in the comment that you linked was presenting a different POV), was perceived by me as a comment by you that had no purpose other than to provoke and promote conflict, for no other reason than that you disagreed with Ghirla's POV. --Elonka20:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo and Molobo
Please stop comparing Ghirlandajo to Molobo. Unlike Molobo, Ghirlandajo has contributed many, many good articles and helped a lot with DYK work. As you are usually great in assuming good faith where others have given up, please assume good faith with Ghirlandajo again and return to editing in a constructive and collaborative instead of combative way (I have asked the same of Ghirlandajo). Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma(討論)19:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I read the article on ]. I thought I might notify you that it is "amendment" not ammendment. Besides, you seem to miss commas in some places. Anyway, the article was quite good.--Wai Hong10:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
