Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Halibutt (talk | contribs) at 10:04, 8 December 2005 (Kłamstwo oświęcimskie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk archives: Archive 1 (moved Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (moved Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (moved May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (moved July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (moved September 27, 2005), Archive 8 (moved November 23, 2005)

RfA: Halibutt collection

Hmmm

A wiesz, w sumie czemu nie? Już dawno się z nikim nie kłóciłem, konfliktów o Danzig też już dawno nie było więc może nawet mam szansę... Halibutt 04:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Powinno być lepiej. A co do HTMLa - wczoraj zauważyłem, po tym jak dodałem sobie tabelkę na stronie dyskusji i wszystko się na niej pomieszało, tekst wskoczył na lewo (tam gdzie panel), tabelki na prawo, czcionka się zmniejszyła i w ogóle nie dawało się tego czytać... Halibutt 05:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I replied to the questions (didn't make it before Goodoldpolonius and logologist voted :) ) and listed myself where needed and took the liberty of advertising myself at our notice board. Do you think it's apropriate to advertise my candidacy at user talk pages as well? Anyway, thanks for the nomination. Halibutt 07:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Halibutt's rfa

Hi - Thanks for the note about Halibutt's rfa. As you might have noticed I rarely vote on rfas - pretty much only when it's someone I've had extensive interactions with. The note of mine you observed on Halibutt's talk page was part of an effort I undertook to identify editors who have made lots of edits but aren't admins, leading to the creation of user:Rick Block/WP600 not admins (which was subsequently largely obsoleted by Misplaced Pages:List of non-admins with high edit counts). When putting this list together I left a message on the talk page of every user on it (whether I knew them or not), asking them to indicate whether they had any interest in becoming an admin. This is the message you saw. I don't recollect having any direct interaction with Halibutt (and have very limited time for wikipedia at the moment), so I am unlikely to vote. Just thought I'd let you know why. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt's RfA

Hi Piotr,

You asked me to strike out the part of my vote. I have not done this, for the following reasons:

• My later addition already weakens this argument a lot.
• The page was still a bad idea; one that illustrates that Halibutt may have problems understanding how other people will react to his actions. In itself, though, not serious enough to oppose his adminship.
• Most of the trouble with the Black Book was actually because of Witkacy's edits. However, I cannot check Halibutt's role here, because much of the discussion was in Polish. So I still have some doubt on his position on this point.

This last point, by the way, is an important one: the Polish Wikipedians seem very cliqueish, which is at least partially a result of the use of the Polish language, which results in you speaking behind our backs. This makes the impression that you are all the same, more or less, and any bad experiences with one Polish editor rub off on the others. This may be unfair, but "we" (the editors that don't understand Polish) just cannot read how "you" deal with the more troublesome Polish editors. I simply cannot trust Halibutt enough to support him as an admin, as a large part of his activities here are a mystery to me... Eugene van der Pijll 23:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt

Hi,

You may wish to check my userpage for my policy on RfAs. Normally, I wouldn't use a short-hand reason like "controversial", but I had already cited the opinions of two respected opposers, and didn't feel the need to add much beyond what had been said. I have no dislike of Halibutt, but I take a very hard-line on adminship because I fear that abusive admins are not subject to sufficient oversight by the achingly slow ArbCom process. If I have a real suspicion that a user might not follow consensus, I oppose his nomination. The accusation has been made that Halibutt has had problems abiding by consensus (at TfD, for example); I am somewhat familiar with that discussion, and find any unilateral action against consensus very troubling, however compelling the argument that consensus was "flawed" (in this case, I didn't find the argument against consensus at all compelling, actually.)

Many an admin likes to cite IAR as reason to ignore a supposedly "flawed" consensus. We don't need to promote an editor who already reasons in this way. I am always open to reconsidering support on a future nomination, however.

And, as a general rule, yes, controversial admins are bad. Their jobs are to enforce consensus, so nothing they do should openly defy the community. Good judges keep their egos in check. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, we are all human. That is why I will gladly support this editor for admin next time, assuming all goes smoothly in the intervening month or two. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 06:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Abuse?

Hi, I'd like to remark that I'm rather disappointed with your behaviour in Halibutt's case. I'm afraid that the whole vote will be rigged up, as you continue sending POV-infested notices to the talk pages of other users. While there are worse nationalists than Halibutt, his recent suggestion to reverse my edits (at user:Knyaz's talk page) is clearly far from NPOV and unacceptable for a would-be admin. Also, I think your own request for "moderating" Ghirlandajo (at mikka's talk) is rather puzzling, to say the least. And I still fail to understand why you persevere in resurrecting odious Molobo, who has been terrorizing dozens articles for the past few months. I just don't believe that advancing nationalist cause they way you do is what the admins are here for. Cheers, Ghirlandajo 00:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote

That's exactly what I hate about electoral campaigns. But just like during the latest Sejm campaign, one can learn a lot. For instance about the conspiracies that try to control Misplaced Pages. Just imagine: you, me and Space Cadet sitting on a throne (single throne, of course), with all other wikipedians at our feet... Hillarious? Not really... Halibutt 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, my RfA gained much advertisment lately and indeed some of the nay-sayers are people whom I never met. Some of them do have a point, others don't, yet others don't even state their point at all. Anyway, let's see how it all ends up.

Interestingly, I didn't learn many new things about myself. I already knew that I'm anti-Polish/Lithuanian/Russian/Ukrainian/Soviet/whatever, I'm even curious why nobody brought my anti-German and anti-Scots behaviour into play so far. What seems comforting is what I wrote at Merovingian's page: only those who do nothing or do something for themselves exclusively, wothout going into contact with other people, are not controversial. It would be much easier if my main area of interests was, say, quantum physics or astronomy. With history it's much easier to stomp into a conflict, especially concerning our part of the world.

What I actually learnt thanks to this RfA is what Renata wrote me on my talk page. It struck me that she remembered reading somewhere that I had something to do with the naming of Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna and hence I must be biased. However, she did not remember that it was me to expand the article on the city in question or to discuss it ad nauseam at the talk page. But that's how life is.

Anyway, I'm sorry that some of the mud fell on you, hopefully people will not refer to you as the anti-Russian admin. :) Halibutt 06:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of anti-Scots behavious, our common Scottish friend was my guest lately and I offered him a herring salad (one of my specialites de la maison) having completely forgotten that he's a vegetarian. Outrageous, wasn't it. Halibutt 06:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I seriously considered two probable outcomes of my RfA, but never thought of the third one: that it will never actually end :) Theoretically it should be over by today's morning, with some 71% votes in favour (discounting the Neutrals). However, since then additional votes were cast and it seems that my candidacy is in the red now if they are to be counted in. So, frankly speaking, I have no idea what to think of it nor what to do with it. Halibutt 11:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

More about the same

I really think he might. I know that everybody is POV, me included. But Halibutt seems more that an "average" Wikipedian. And the RfA page lists more things about him - some black book I have never heard about before, some template reverting, some other stuff. I just cannot completely trust him, because I know his strong bias. Yes, he is approachable, and polite, and intelligent, and knowledgeable, and dedicated, and so on, but those other things really bother me. I left a message on his talk - you need my help, just ask, but I just cannot support your RfA. Renata3 06:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually sent DY email saying to take a look. Let's see what happens. And as far as neutral goes... I have made my mind. Some encounters were seriously upsetting. For me RfA means trust, and I cannot completely trust him.

Good night... It's 1:20am here. Renata3 06:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw the DY vote. He made some very strong argument in the email reply. But I am not changing my vote. Renata3 03:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As for me, I'd vote neutral if there was an easier way to deadmin abusive sysops. But de-admnning somebody is tedious business (Stevertigo case for instance) so I feel we have to be very careful in promoting people with prior issues. I realise that, regrettably that I would be voting against a lot of qualified people, but given the damage a rogue admin can do to WP I have to adopt this "better safe than sorry" attitude. The black book seals the oppose for me. I've no idea why people create pages like that. I was in another editor's "black book" once", and it almost feels like a personal attack. Borisblue 06:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

I meant just that I said a sentence before: Remove an attack page from his Userspace and do not keep similar materials for a couple of months. Sorry, if I was not clear abakharev 07:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt rfa

Hello Piotrus - as you can see, perhaps, I've currently voted neutral. Based on most of my interactions with Halibutt, and despite the fact that we have very frequently disagreed, I would be happy to vote to support him. But I remain a bit concerned about the incident from several months ago where he went on a WP:POINT violation spree with German city articles, inserting the Polish name. If he would clarify how he feels about this action and acknowledges that this was the wrong way of going about things, I would be happy to change my vote to support. As it stands, that activity, and Halibutt's refusal at the time to recognize that he was wrong (at least, this is my recollection - if it is not true, please correct me - a statement from him at the time admitting that he was in the wrong would be sufficient for me to change my vote), gives me some pause. Not enough to oppose, but enough to be unwilling, for the moment, to vote in support. And believe me when I say that I would much rather vote in support, I'm just not sure I can do that at the moment. john ] 07:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I will try to reply to John's comment above by contacting him directly - as soon as time permits. I've been awake for over 36 hours now and this day will not end any time soon as we're closing the December issue today and I'm nowhere near finished with my texts. In the meantime, could you delete that darn page? I thought it could be ignored, but apparently I was wrong and was disappointed to find out that people still consider it an argument against me (not against my adminship, but against me personally as assumptions of bad will are too serious). Just delete it yourself or ask the person who moved it ~where it is to delete it. Could you? Halibutt 12:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Halibutt 17:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Black book

I don't see how the diff is relevant. I know that if someone preserved an attack page against me, the fact that Jimbo commented on its talk page won't make me feel less offended. Borisblue 19:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well then, if it's never used, why is it so important to Halibutt that he still insists on maintaining it despite the damage it is doing on his RfA? Just because Jimbo scribbled a comment on its talk page? And I do feel that leaving this page is akin to a personal attack. Are you saying you won't feel hurt or offended being in Nohat's position? As a close friend of Halibutt's please persuade him to delete the page- I don't care if it technically isn't illegal, it's uncivil, and unbecoming of anyone even considering to be an admin. And please don't leave me any more messages regarding the vote- I can monitor the RfA page if I need more information about the issue. Borisblue 20:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: RfA for Halibutt

You wrote: Thank you for your comments. Your comment made me think - how is a controversy a handicap for a 'broom and bucket' wielder? Also, what are the traits he is lacking? As his nominator, I wonder if I missed something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Cześć! I have no experience as an admin, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that these repeating contraversies, if continued, would cloud the good things he could do with the additional functions (however small they may be). As to the traits, what I had in mind is the inability to sometimes distance himself from certain subjects and contain his emotions. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's bad in itself, but ultimitely I feel it's not the way an admin should act. Karol 17:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. Hope it's OK for me to copy this conversation to the voting page.

Just a note

Template:Pl icon Dzięki serdeczne za Twoje poparcie i konsekwentną obronę na niezliczonych stronach niezliczonych ludzi. Gdy kilkukrotnie odmawiałem nominacji, właśnie taki rezultat miałem na myśli. Chciałbym móc powiedzieć, że nie biorę komentarzy z RfA do siebie, ale to nie byłaby prawda, bo trudno nie brać do siebie sytuacji, w których moje działania interpretuje się opacznie - i traktuje jako najgorszą zniewagę (jak w przypadku kolorowego zeszyciku, w który naprawdę wierzyłem). Oczywiście, wielu z oponentów ma całkiem sensowne powody swojej decyzji, co więcej, w wielu przytaczanych sytuacjach rzeczywiście moje reakcje nie były do końca przemyślane. Jednak te akurat głosy nie bolą, gorzej jest z tymi, którzy jak Ghirlandajo wykorzystują każdą okazję do dowalenia mi, nawet jeśli wiąże się to z przeinaczaniem faktów lub wycinaniem z kontekstu. Jak to mówią "nie ważne czy słusznie czy nie, gdy się kogoś obrzuca błotem, zawsze coś z tego błota zostaje". No ale tak to już bywa.

Tak czy siak - dziękuję za poparcie. Nie wiem co z niego wyniknie, ale i tak jestem zadziwiony tym, że tak wielu ludzi mnie poparło. Przyznaję, wielu z nich nie doceniłem i nie przewidziałem, że będą w stanie wznieść się ponad nasze utarczki z przeszłości i dostrzec w moim postępowaniu także i dobre strony. To jest bardzo pocieszające.

Niestety, na koniec głosowania w mojej sprawie będę musiał zniknąć, więc nie będę mógł odpowiadać na zarzuty/pytania. Tak się złożyło, że wczoraj i dziś byłem w pracy niemal 24h na dobę, a pracy jeszcze nie skończyłem. Jutro (dziś!) z rana jadę do rodziny, a po powrocie mam jeszcze kompletnie zawalony poniedziałek... Postaram się odpowiedzieć na wszystkie komentarze w niedzielę w nocy, ale nie wiem czy mi się to uda.
Template:En icon Cordial thanks for your support and for your consistent defence of my candidacy on countless pages of countless users. This situation is exactly what I had in mind when I declined being nominated several times in a row. I would be more than happy to be able to say that I don't take the RfA comments personally, but that would be wrong. It's hard not to, when my behaviour is misinterpreted, twisted the other way around and used against me as a grave offense (as was the case of the coloured booklet, in which I truly believed). Obviously, many of those who oppose me have quite sensible objections, moreover, in some of the situations my reactions were truly bullheaded. However, these votes do not hurt me. It's much worse with those who like Ghirlandajo take the liberty to take advantage of every single situation to present me in a bad light, even if it involves twisting facts or taking them out of context. They say whether right or wrong, some of the mud thrown at you always stays. That's how life is - and we know who is she.

Anyway, thank you for your support. I don't know what will be the result of that voting, but I must admit that I'm astonished by how many people supported me. I also admit that I underestimated some of those who did and I never thought that they would be able to rise above the skirmishes we were involved in in the past and find some good sides of what I do. That's very comforting.

Unfortunately, for the final days of my RfA I will be unable to respond to questions/accusations and such. It turned out that the last two days I spent at work and my work is still not finished. Tomorrow (today!) I'm leaving for my family and will not be able to return until Monday. And on that day I'll still have to work hard. I will try to answer as many questions as I can on Sunday night, but I'm not sure I can handle that. Halibutt 01:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA now reads like a dark movie screenplay. Currently the nay-sayers are winning by a huge 0,59% margin :) As it ends soon, I'll apparently not be nominated, which is quite sad as there were several people to vote and never come back to see my replies. I mean especially Xoloz, Borisblue and Vb, who seem to be having a sudden wikibreak. I knew my RfA was going to be hard, but never thought other users might need to take a break :) Halibutt 02:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Strange, the heated dispute over my values and virtues has made me actually care about the voting... So far the tally is some safe 71,6%, which is above the 70% cut-line someone mentioned in the discussion. However, the WP:RfA page mentions 75-80% level, so I guess Ghirlandajo has nothing to fear :) . Halibutt 16:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

message

Thanks for messaging me about Halibutt's RfA; I don't always watch the RfA page. I don't think I've ever seen anyone go through with 21 oppose votes, but sometimes the 1st RfA, if failed but well handled, and followed by a couple months of good work, can turn into a successful RfA the next time. (For the record, I'm not entirely disagreeable to a Polish point of view ... and this reminds me I've been meaning to write the music history of Poland, especially the Renaissance at Kraków, for quite some time now ... ) Antandrus (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent link! Thanks for that; I can use it. Btw, hello from a fellow m.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to wiki

Hi there, I'm back - and quite happy to see that many more people cast their vote. I also noticed Cadorna (talk · contribs) vote in my RfA and it seems to me he might be someone's puppet, though I'm not sure in any rate. I remember meeting him in the wiki once or twice, which seems quite logical if you take a look at his contributions...

Anyway, I'll browse the RfA page to see if there are questions I might be able to reply to. Halibutt 18:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Because you are too anxious

I did not mean that you do something wrong, I just think that you tend to be a little too anxious, jumpy and pushy. There is nothing wrong about that, I understand the feelings involved in RfA. But my point was that Halibutt behaves even better than you. And he is the one who should go and argue with every single oppose voting user.

I did this because I recently nominated a user for adminship (pretty rash action on my part), and he started to get seriously offended with the oppose votes and he just simply dig his hole. And Halibutt maintains his coolness and politness. And in comparission, behaves better than you! Renata3 20:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral voting... and not voting

Hi Piotr. My reading of the matter of neutral votes and withdrawing neutral votes is this: the RfA system isn't really a voting system. Instead it's a way of breaking down into an easy-to-tally way the consensus of the WikiCommunity.

By withdrawing my neutral vote, I'm asking not to be counted either way any more in the event of a tie - 'neutral' votes could swing it if the debate is very polarised as they indicate that there is no consensus.

I think that Halibutt's answers were very creditable, and it was good of him/her to find my question in the big pile of votes and spend time thinking about an answer and providing it. I would have switched my vote to support, but I have been unhappy with the way some of his/her supporters have set upon people opposing. I'm not prepared to penalise the candidate for that (especially when, as I say, the answers given were so very good) but my support vote might be taken as supporting other aspects of this RfA.

In the event of this RfA failing, when Halibutt comes up for RfA again I would then vote to support.

I hope this makes my thinking clear to you! Pokojowy! (which should mean "Peace!", with any luck!) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean you (I'm not that barefaced!) but, if I can be honest, you haven't helped by being so quick to defend Halibutt that you look defensive of Halibutt.

A friend of mine is 3rd generation American-Polish (he supplied the "Pokojowy" word... showing exactly how assimilation works!!) and he advised me not to get involved, saying "Polish people are all the same - we're very passionate and always defend what's ours". I don't know if that's a fair stereotype (it's certainly a good compliment!) but I can certainly appreciate it and am guilty of it myself! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship#Halibutt

You wrote 'maybe another time'. But most of the objections raised against Halibutt, a contributor who has been with us for more then two years, are actually about a fairly old events. I think that most of the objections raised there have been addressed already addressed. You may want to read Halibutt's responces there - to me they prove that he is a trustworthy person. Not perfect, no - but who among us has never erred? That he can ackowledge his mistakes, apologize and learn from them is to me a sign of a good editor - and a good person. Why should we wait any longer to recognize him as a valuable contributor? And how long should we wait? A months? 6? Another two years? I'd like to ask you to reconsider your position, especially in light of Halibutt's responces.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to reply so late, but I was unable to do so:Wikibreak. It seems true that the issues raised on the request page are old news, but I have this thing where I prefer to stay out of controversial issues. If my vote were to be changed, I would only change it to a neutral vote. I think Halibutt might be reformed, but at the moment, even if I were to change my vote, it would not make any difference as the RFA seems to be failing. Im sure that I definitly will support next time, though. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hallibutt

Thanks for letting me know, I am following up. Regards, Jayjg 16:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

this and that

Hi Piotrus, and thanks for the messages. I was busy last week, and had no time to respond until now. I have added my view of my blocks to the admin noticeboard. I did not know the details about Wiglafs block, one of them for the 3RR seems to be OK, the other one I do not know. Luckily, Wiglaf will from now on seek other admins assistance regarding Molobo. I am also glad to hear that you will seek input before unblocking Molobo. To be honest, I was a bit disapointed that you unblocked my first block without even telling me. Anyway, it seems Molobo got the message by now, and even though he probably does not like it, he seems to be accepting the vote outcome.

About Halibutt, unfortunately i cannot support his adminship. He is a good editor, and mostly reasonable neutral, but his resistance to consensus probably does not make him a good admin. BTW Did you know that this is his second nomination? Best regards, -- Chris 73 ] 22:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... i was sure there was a nomination something like 2 years ago, but I can't find anything now. even though I went looking around quite a bit. As long as I can't find anything, treat it like it did not happen. Maybe my brain is playing tricks on me. I'll keep on looking. Also, at one point Space Cadet asked me to nominate him User:Chris_73/Archive_004#User_talk:24.7.179.169, which i politely declined. -- Chris 73 ] 09:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt contacted me and said that there was no previos RFA, which is good enough for me. So it is my mistake, I guess. Sorry for the confusion, and my apologies. -- User:Chris 73

Image undeletion

The response to the implied question in your heading is that it's impossible to undelete images, I'm afraid; if they're needed again, they have to be up-loaded.

The response to your message, though, is that the painting might be out of copyright, but photographs of it are still covered by copyright law. Thus, for example, postcards sold by galleries and photographs in books or on the Web are all likely to be copyrighted by the photographers or publishers. If you took the photograph yourself, you need to say so, and to add the correct template; if you didn't, then you need to give the source, and again add the correct copyright template. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The worry is that, unlike most other content issues, copyvios could lay Misplaced Pages open to legal action, so assuming that the images are OK unless proved otherwise would be very risky. If they're taken from an on-line gallery, it should be possible to check their copyright status, though. Finding the gallery could be difficult, but I'll do what I can. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings ProKonsul!

And thank you for your reply. You have mine HERE, Sir...best regards, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

And again HERE. Always glad to offer whatever help I can--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You may also want to check This and Here. And, if you have not already, get in touch with GeneralPatton. I'm sure he will have some interesting tales to tell. Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

historia komunikacji

szukam wszelkich informacji nt historii komunikacji. potrzebne sa mi do pracy magisterskiej o komunikatorach internetowych. czy moglbys przeslac mi mailem artykul jaki napisales na ten temat? bede bardzo wdzieczna, bo z tewgo co napisales na forum wnioskuje, ze doskonale odpowiada on moim potrzebom! czekam z niecierpliwoscia!! pozdrawiam karolina ps moj mail to batik@poczta.fm

Thanks for your interest

I very much like the concept of Misplaced Pages, and have been a passive reader for a year or two. My major interest in editing however has been limited to 1 subject (though I learned a lot by doing this, painful as it might have been) I'll almost certainly take up your suggestion, but I wanted to finish something the way I started it. Thanks again, Pete Ekman 69.253.195.228 02:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Prussian Homage

Hello Piotruś, I'm trying to move Prussian Tribute to Prussian Homage. The latter is used by Davies, and it also gives more Google results. I can't move it because Prussian Homage is a redirect right now. Thanks. Appleseed 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Is this page move process something new? I could have sworn that, until recently, I was able to move onto redirects... Anyway, this red tape is getting out of hand. I'm afraid this obsession with "process" is going to kill WP. Oh well, let's see how it goes. Appleseed 04:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That Międzymorze discussion sure turned into a mess. I think the situation with Prussian Homage is a little different, but I understand your caution. Feel free to vote btw. Appleseed 14:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Angra Mainyu

Could you check out the Angra Mainyu page and the related discussion? Thx. Chelman 12:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Poland and Serbs

That would be wonderful if you could that, your highness ProConsul! HolyRomanEmperor 19:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Plish opnion on Serbs? HolyRomanEmperor 14:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I expected the figures to be low, but not that low :( HolyRomanEmperor 21:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Presidents

Piotruś, could you move List of Polish heads of state since 1918 to List of Polish presidents, which is a redirect right now? I don't expect this to be controversial. Appleseed 22:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That info was there originally, but I removed it because it complicates the list and the category hierarchy. They should have their own lists. Appleseed 23:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Having a list of heads of state is a little ungainly. If we were to be faithful to it, it would include presidents, first secretaries, chief of state, monarchs, etc. If you want to exclude monarchs, you have to include a date ("since 1918"), which is awkward. It also makes it hard to link to WPs in other languages, because none of them have such an article. I think it's a good idea to consult the notice board. In the meanwhile, why not just move the article to list of presidents. I saved the list of the first secretaries in the PZPR article. Appleseed 23:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan language

Thanks for your link, but I can't really get involved in that dispute, as nobody will ever see the end of it. In my opinion, Moldovan is a creole (in some of its forms, as otherwise it is just Romanian). I'm not saying this because I think Moldova belongs in Romania etc., as I hold no such ambition (unlike most of the Romanian contributors). And I don't think that Moldova is less of a reality, or a contemptible concept, since that would meen seeing Belgium as part of France, or Austria (and Switzerland, or Liechtenstein) into Germany. If you have doubts about linking language reference with Romanian in your articles, don't worry. Most of the partisans of the "Moldovan-as-distinct" would not claim that the language has been distinct forever, and they would admit that there are few differences, and rather that the few differences that exist are essential (which I may be open to). In any case, this should not apply to, let's say, 88% of the language(s), and in no case to person's names. I also noticed that there are scores of people in Moldova who consider themselves Romanian-speakers, and most of these even ethnic Romanians. So, no problem that can't be avoided. Dahn 23:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Stroucki

User:司徒天

Gwiazdka

Dziękuje za gwiazdkę, to zawsze miło coś dostać :-). Niestety chyba w najbliższym czasie nie będe mógł poświecać wikipedii dużo czasu. --Wojsyl 21:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Max Weber

> Why did you remove the part of the sentence 'from Russia and Austria-Hungary' in the article on Max Weber?--

Thanks for the question, Piotrus. It may have been premature. It just dawned on me that Poland was not an independent state before WW I. Do I now recollect that rightly? My knowledge on Weber is better than my knowledge of European history of the late 19th century, especially with regard to Poland.

In my view the whole section on 'Weber and German Politics' is the weakest part of the whole Max Weber article and I made an attempt to rewrite it in August, but gave up eventually. Weber's liberal imperialism (or imperial liberalism?) is hard to understand a hundred years and two world wars later. Nevertheless I think the article as a whole is great.

I will reinsert 'from Russia and Austria-Hungary'. Thanks for the welcome, Piotrus. Good work. Archos 05:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome.

Hi Piotrus, thanks for the welcome (and the sig. tip). JayFrancis 16:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

From Irpen

Please check your inbox. --Irpen 20:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Fulford

I have been editing much the article Battle of Fulford, which has been a stub. If you could please check this article and see if either it can be a featured article, or I can be recommended on how to make it fit the criteria to be a featured article. Thank you.

Gwiazdka

Piotrusiu, bardzo dziękuję za gwiazdkę. :-) Appleseed 01:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Była pusta, już nie jest. :) Dzięki, przy okazji może coś jeszcze do niej dodam. Appleseed 02:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Serdecznie dziękuję za śliczną gwiazdkę na konto zbliżającej się Gwiazdki! Skorzystałem z Twej propozycji i bliżej określiłem się językowo. Dziękuję! logologist 10:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Fulford

Thanks for your help Piotrus.

Mielzynski Family

Actually the family was a major one. They were one of the wealthiest in Poland with significant holdings. Male proteginy received the title count from Frederick the Great (and later his son) of Prussia in late 1700's (that part of Poland being under the Prussian yolk at that time). Unlike other hrabia titles, there's was a real one. In about 1905 the head of the family adopted a Kurnatowski as his heir and successor which caused some confusion amongst the Polish szlachta since (although a count/hrabia by Papal edict in 1902)could he also be the hrabia Mielzynski? The decision was probably not under the Weimer Convention on such matters.

Thank you for your comments - please consider registering an account if you intend to edit wiki more. while I don't doubht Mielżyński family deserves an entry, it was definetly not a major family - not like Radziwiłłs, Lubomirski, Sapieha, Potocki or Zamoyski. I am also having significant troubles googling much to Mielżyński family - surely, if it was so important, it would have many references. My search gave 75. Radziwłł, by comparison, nets 840, and relatively less known Branicki gets 412. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record Frederick the Great had no children; it is probable the original contributor meant his nephew Frederick William II. Olessi 02:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was incorrect about the Mielzynski titles: Maximilian Mielzynski obatined his title from Frederich-Wilhelm II of Prussia on 19 September 1786 and his grandson, Maceij was seperately given the title from Frederich-Wilhelm III on 12 July 1817. Google shows me 11,900 hits on the family but this is totally unfiltered. You may want to give a try (if not already ) http://ez2find.com (72 hits on the family under hrabia mielzynski) which filters out multiple entries and can zero in on specific languages (Polish being one). On a seperate question: do you have any advice on how (if at all) it is possible to find an old Polish book (pre WWII) called "Strzal o Polnocy", involving a tragic love story of the Kurnatowski family at their estate/palace in Cieletniki? thanks.

If you are interested in Mielżyński family, I'd recommend creating an account and taking care of the appopriate articles yourself, I don't think I will have time to do it myself soon. For the book, try www.allegro.pl, Polish version of ebay - many used book shops sell their wares there (you may want to email them and ask for help).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Zdjęcie

Dzięki za nominowanie mojego zdjęcia, ale ono jest bardzo kiepskiej jakości, i w życiu nie przejdzie. Poprostu nie miałam nic innego. :)--SylwiaS 02:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, zobaczymy. Dzięki za narzędzia! --SylwiaS 08:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

mój log jest be

Chwalić się nie będę, bo to czysto literacka fikcja, którą wielu ludzi bierze za odzwierciedlenie prawdy o mnie. Ale jeśli nie zamierzasz popełniać takiego błędu to nie ma sprawy - hal9001 kropka blog.pl. Pozdr. Halibutt 23:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Bar Confederation

Thanks for the note. The usual "move" procedure won't let me change "Confederation of Bar" to "Bar Confederation." Do you know of an admin way to do it without jumping through a lot of needless hoops? logologist 01:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Hello, I'm just wondering why you are adding the unreferenced template to a number of articles. There is a fairly strong consensus that this template only belongs on pages where there is an definite question about their accuracy. No one seems to have made such allegations about the articles that you are adding the templates to. Moreover you have added it to some pages, such as Ukrainian presidential election, 2004, that have quite a number of external links serving as references. - SimonP 04:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is something of a problem. The rules have long called for references to be separated from external links. In reality, with the exception of Featured Articles, websites used as references are almost always added to the external links section. Most articles only get a reference section when print sources are used, and since at least 90% of Misplaced Pages articles are created solely with material from the web, most have only the external links section. - SimonP 04:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The main problem with the unreferenced tag is that there are several hundred thousand articles it could go on. It clearly is impossible, and desirable, to mar such a significant portion of the project with the template. As with other similar templates such as {{expansion}} or {{verify}} a specific reason needs to be given before the template should be placed in any particular article. Also in my experience the unreferenced template doesn't work. Until I recently went through and removed the tag from several hundred articles, the majority of the entries in Category:Articles lacking sources were still sitting around from David Gerard's January experiment of adding it to all new pages. - SimonP 05:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly believe that what we have to lose is credibility. In my experience the quality and accuracy of Misplaced Pages's content is far higher than our actual reputation for quality and accuracy. Misplaced Pages's most important weakness is one of perception, not of quality. In terms of perception your average reader doesn't much care if an article is lacking a references section. However, having messages, which are clearly only meant for editors, will do nothing but convince readers that this is an amateurish organization. - SimonP 05:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Second that. By your logic, you can place a tag for a good 1/2 of all articles. Either add it to all of those, or save it for articles with serious problems of dubious info. At least please consider stopping this en masse tagging until there is a policy or some discussion on that. Otherwise, please tag ALL articles that are unreferenced, that is hundreds of thousands of them. --Irpen 07:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. What is particularly dubious about content of Chernihiv and Oleg of Chernihiv? Can I add similar tags to Warsaw and Krakow? --Ghirlandajo 07:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am surprized that you, an experienced Wikieditor, started this en-masse tagging without floating a couple of trial balls to see what's the community's stand on that. I see your point and it makes sense. But why couldn't you make your point prominent enought to generate interest by tagging few visible articles and see the feedback before tagging so many articles at once? There are less drastic ways to encourage people to add refs than placing a tag over the whole article that makes it look dubious as a whole. --Irpen 19:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence {{unreferenced}}

Hi. Could you please provide clarification as to why you flagged the Declaration of Independence article as needing references? I noticed you flagged it only one minute after flagging Polish notation, which leads me to believe you did not visit both the Misplaced Pages links, as well as the external links, to see if adequate references were provided. It would save others a vast amount of time if you could iterate the facts which you feel are deficient. Obviously, some articles are blatantly lacking references (they have none whatsoever), however I don't feel Declaration of Independence meets that criteria. Thanks. --Dan East 04:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

After reading SimonP's comment, and your reply on his talk page, I understand why you flagged this article. However it sounds like it is more of a formatting / nomenclature issue than an actual lack of references, in which case I wouldn't think {{unreferenced}} would be the appropriate tag to use. --Dan East 05:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Braun

Hi Piotrus. Today luckily I had some time, so I created a large disambig page with the german entries, and also scanned the english wiki for Braun. I located the disambig on Braun, and moved the company article, since i think the disambig is the more important information. But feel free to move it back if you like. Also thanks for the info on Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names. So far I have not had any time to look at it in detail (70+ hour work weeks), but I hope to do so within the next few weeks. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}}

Thank you for adding a related book to article on Ukiyo-e, however, there is a difference between references - which as been used to provide facts for the article - and further reading, which has not. See Misplaced Pages:Cite sources for more information.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Piotrus. I noticed you are working on a project for referencing, which is a very good thing and you deserve support.

Let me ask you this as an expert on references in wikipedia: I am not sure, whether it is right to just search for some references (and on-line in amazon.com what is more) as I have done. However, the Misplaced Pages:Cite_your_sources guide is not completely clear about it. On one side (from the word) references are where you cite from. Then (on the other side), references are where other people can verify the information, similar to external links, but not the same (do you agree on the two meanings?). With this latter sense in mind I put the book as a reference. I also think I saw this practice with some other article (forgot where). A problem is, conceded, I don't know the book. But then, I think, the information in the article is general enough to be found in nearly any book on the topic (and the book I put seemed reasonable enough). What do you say? Ben /_C 11:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I admit I was once confused as well, and added sources to references without actually reading them. Now I know better, and I try to teach others that there is a difference. A source which may contain useful info, but has - to the best of one's knowledge - not been used in the article, should go either to 'Further reading' or 'External links' (or 'See also'). 'References' is only for sources that have been cited in the article, and the best practice is to link the relevant facts from main body to the reference via Misplaced Pages:Footnotes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, you wrote:

A source which may contain useful info, but has - to the best of one's knowledge - not been used in the article, should go either to 'Further reading' or 'External links' (or 'See also').

Leaving the concrete case aside (where I even don't know the source), the guidlines in Misplaced Pages:Cite_your_sources are not that strict: (citing)

In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors.

I don't want to argue about the specific article (ukiyoe), but I want to get this straight for me personally (and I think it is very important for your project also). I hope you don't mind my insisting. Thank you. Ben /_C 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess rules may need some improvement. My rule of thumb is if you are pretty sure it is a good reference, explaining most of the issues of the article, you can add it even if you had just read the abstract. Google Print is pretty helpful here. However, as I wrote above, what we should idealy strive for is referencing every fact with footnotes (but I realize it is quite impossible now, so I am adding this tag to the articles lacking sources, not those lacking footnoted sources). With educating you about our references and you adding this book to ukiyo-e, my effort has already paid off somewhat :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agree with what you said about footnotes. As for ukiyoe, I'll hope we'll find a book. I will search some more. I wish you success with the project. It is surely worthwhile. Thanks for the clarification. Ben /_C 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured pictures

Thanks, Piotrus, for your kind offer. I'll think what I can do with this particular picture. Your comment even induced me to add to my page a gallery listing a fraction of images I uploaded to this project. So far, two of my pictures - both by Prokudin-Gorskii - have been promoted to featured. Unfortunately, other candidates - such as Image:Stpeteskyline.jpg - have been moved by me or others to Wikimedia Commons, so they are not illegible as well.

By the way, I admit to have waded through Polish segment of this project but a couple of times, but today, while adding {unreferenced} tags to Krakow and Warsaw I noticed two nice pictures - Image:Warszawa2.jpg and Image:Katedra na wawelu.jpg - which are not tagged at all. Should we list them for deletion? What do you think? --Ghirlandajo 18:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Live Steam loco

As per your request, I've added a link to more photos on the FPC page. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 11:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

from Geniu

Hi. Thanks/dzięki for message. this picture europe_warsaw.JPG was in my computer and i dont know the source where it was taken from. I will try to find it.

Best wishes!!

Iuga of Moldavia

Hi there, Piotr. I might need your help. Could I have more info on this guy? He probably isn't the same as Yuriy of Ruthenia. I found him referenced as "of uncertain immediate lineage", but he is Koriatowicz for sure. Also, could you please look into why I cannot link him to Category:Lithuanian nobility? Somebody added a Subcategory of the same name inside the Category - I changed the name, but I guess it changed for the Category as well (chage it back, if you want to). I really don't get it. Thanks. Dahn 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. I had already checked out the In-Wiki sources, and my head had started spinning (it was my first contact ever with Lithuanian nobility, and I got to see their names in Lithuanian, Polish, Ruthenian, and Belarussian...). I really do not get why the Romanian sources don't bother to move past autarkical: if it's in Lithuania, it doesn't matter basically, so Iuga is just "a prince from Lithuania". Thanks for the info, perhaps you could pass the issue to some other Poles. Perhaps we could solve the enigma... Dahn 02:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

presentations

Hello.

Last summer, we held the first Wikimania, a worldwide event for wikipedians, in Frankfurt. You may understand a bit more at http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/Main_Page, but I am most sorry to say no real good report of the event was made. Some bits here and there. During this meeting, possibly 30 people made presentations, on very various topics. Many were recorded (not all as far as I know). The list is the list of recording of these people. In the list, you will see a trigram, this trigram comes from the name of the person (for example, my real name is Florence Devouard, so my trigram is FD1 (Wikimania05-FD1_low_video.ogg). You may find the old program as well as correspondance for names here : http://commons.wikimedia.org/Wikimania_2005_Presentations.

Cheers and good luck

Anthere 07:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Operation Wisła

I gather there is now a consensus to move "Action Vistula" to "Operation Wisła." At least two persons have attempted it, but there seems to be no provision in the "move" mechanism for the necessary diacritic. Do you by any chance know how the move might be made? Does one have to move the article to "Operation Wisla," without the diacritic? logologist 22:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Tugay Bey

What do You think about that? Radomil talk 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikibar idea

Hi Piotr! Thanks for you advice about my Wikibar idea. I've listed it at Tools as suggested. I'm not too sure about turning it into Wiki mark-up, as it needs to open in a blank (HTML) sidebar to work. If it was in Wiki mark-up, users would have open the Misplaced Pages page and cram that into a sidebar... wouldn't they? I'm prepared to be quite wrong on this, mind - I just haven't given it any thought! Thanks again! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I found a great source

On issues involved with history of Eastern Europe : http://www.taraskuzio.net/academic/history.pdf

Historiography and National Identity among the Eastern Slavs: Towards a New Framework1 TARAS KUZIO, York University, Toronto, Canada Abstract The article surveys Tsarist, Soviet and Western historiography of Russia and how this affected the national identities and inter-ethnic relations among the three eastern Slavs. Western historiography of Russia largely utilised an imperialist and statist historiographical framework created within the Tsarist empire during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although this framework was imperialist it was gradually accepted as ‘objective’ by the Western scholarly community. Yet, this historiography was far from being ‘objective’. After 1934 Soviet historiography also reverted to the majority of the tenets found in Tsarist historiography. Within Tsarist, Western and Soviet historiographies of ‘Russia’ eastern Slavic history was nationalised on behalf of the Russian nation which served to either ignore or deny a separate history and identity for Ukrainians and Belarusians. In the post-Soviet era all 15 Soviet successor states are undertaking nation and state building projects which utilise history and myths to inculcate new national identities. The continued utilisation of the Tsarist, Western and Soviet imperial and statist historiographical schema is no longer tenable and serves to undermine civic nation building in the Russian Federation. This article argues in favour of a new, non-imperial framework for histories of ‘Russia’ territorially based upon the Russian Federation and inclusive of all of its citizens. --Molobo 13:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC) It describes very well how history was falsfied by Russian authorities in order to justify Russian imperialism. --Molobo 13:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

more on unreferenced

On saw your comments on Template talk:Unreferenced. I began tagging medical and science articles with this tag about a week ago. I put them at the top of talk page. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine puts most tags in this location. So far two editor have removed them. In the first case, we agreed to re-locate to bottom of article where References would be. Today, another editor removed the tag from two article talk page saying that Talk pages don't need sources. To back it up they referred me to Category:Articles lacking sources. That page says nothing about the location. Clearly, the unreferenced tag page gives the editor two options for tag placement, listing talk page first. I agree, this issue needs to be settled.--FloNight 20:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Working on it

Done. Not the most perfect way, but much better than what it was before. Halibutt 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

pl:Wikipedysta:Radosław Sikora

Nie jestem pewnie czy zredirectowanie strony z przestrzeni głównej na stronę użytkownika to dobry pomysł. Może lepiej napisać o nim normalna notkę biograficzną (tylko niech tego nie robi sam :P). Roo72 05:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Zwróć uwagę, ze np. en:Jimbo Wales linkuje do swojej strony uzytkownika, czyli nie ma nic przeciwko takim self-references." - może kiedyś tak było, ale teraz jest osobna strona użytkownika i osobna strona w przestrzeni głównej. Cheers, Яǿǿ ✉ 05:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Italian artist

Hi there! I'm afraid I'm starting to loose my nerves when it comes to certain wikipedian named similarly to an Italian painter. Too many insults, too many assumptions of bad will, too many non-constructive and provocative edits IMO. Perhaps if I could at least imagine that the guy believes his own words it would be easier to cope with his behaviour, but now I believe the line was crossed. I was thinking of starting the RfC on him, though perhaps you have some other idea? Halibutt 09:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hali, you should cool off a bit. I haven't started revising your ludicrous articles on Soviet-Polish War as yet. You will need your nerves when I get to review Soviet-Polish War, Katyn Incident, etc. --Ghirlandajo 13:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I realized that there is quite an easy way to deter the guy. Just mention the world apology and he would never return to that part of the discussion... Which however does not solve the problem. I still wonder what could be done about it. I doubt mediation would help as it is not about his edits but rather his offensive tone and language. So perhaps some user conduct dispute, though it might be too strong. Dunno... Halibutt 15:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Check and . I don't have much hope any more, but perhaps it indeed is a step in a good direction. Time will show. Halibutt 14:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Tools

Piotruś, are you aware of any WP tools that, for a given article, would tell you 1) a list of the articles you've linked from your article, 2) how many times you've linked them, and 2) if you link to a disambig page? Appleseed 16:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Pytanie

Czy można kwestionować całą kategorię ? Istnieje dość dziwna kategoria Slavic culture, która w zasadzie niczego nie zawiera, a trudno mówić o wspólnej słowiańskiej kulturze(w przeciwieństwie do wczesnej mitologii) istniejącej współcześnie lub nawet w średniowieczu. --Molobo 17:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD

Hello again. I am contacting editors applies NPOV and NOR standards rigidly for their input on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where a consensus has yet to be established. (You are particularly well qualified, I think, to describe the difficulties in making some of these classifications, given your knowledge of modern single-party state structures. Notice that Chinese Communist and Soviet bloc leaders are conspicuously absent from he list, including Stalin. Some people, of course, argue that general secretaries of ruling parties of single-party states are not dictators because there is a collective leadership. They have a good point (with the exception of leaders like Stalin who subverted the party), but to not include these leaders implies that they were not dictators, which is also POV.) Anyway, if you have time, please take a look. Best regards. 172 07:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

KK

Nyah, I'm not in the right mood just now... Though it's quite surprizing. I've heard that Balcerowicz and his RPP are worse than Gomułka, but never thought that World Bank could be worse than Hitler or Stalin... or the two combined...

BTW, that comment is showing also a great way to convert all countries of the world to communism. If Hitler+Stalin=World Bank, then... just throw Hitler from it and what you'll get will be Stalin. Halibutt 17:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that guy some time ago. He definitely appeared on wiki with a good knowledge of its procedures and specific language, so perhaps he might be somehow "related" to an already-experienced user. Halibutt 21:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use magazine covers

I respectfully disagree with you: we should not use fair use images unless we're pretty sure we have a good argument.

However, if you wish to revert the three or so articles I removed the TIME covers from, I won't revert back.

I would suggest, however, that if you wish to keep them there, you should write down the fair use rationale, preferably on the image description page for the image in question. If the TIME magazine coverage is mentioned in the article in question (such as TIME man of the year, etc) there's probably a much stronger fair use claim.

Does that sound good? Thanks, —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Canberra Photos

Hi Piotrus, I would very much appreciate your input in the following argument. There seems to be a gang of users unwilling to allow anyone to interfere with there Canberra project without invitation. It was risky to take my camera on our school excursion to Canberra, but I did for the sake of the photos I could upload to Wiki. Needless to say, I'm deeply distressed over the reaction that has taken place. In particular, I would like to ask if the removal of all my photos off the Lake Burley Griffin article was a step forward in the usefullness of the page. Please either voice your opinion on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Canberra or write back to me. Thanks for your time (and I hope) support. --Fir0002 08:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Mikołaj "Rudy" Radziwiłł

Hello, good work on Mikołaj "Rudy" Radziwiłł, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Misplaced Pages accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Mikołaj "Rudy" Radziwiłł? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or there are several different citation methods list at WP:CITET. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 20:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

It is a generic message to inform you that there was a User Conduct Request for Comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo started recently. As you are one of the sides in the conflict and your name appears in the evidence of disputed behaviour section you might want to take a look at it. Halibutt 00:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I will post soon 5 variants so I would be happy if you would comment and choose the best for the article. For this I invite you to come to the talk page and contribute. -- Bonaparte talk 13:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you think is good to make the mediation or not? -- Bonaparte talk 21:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User SCA

"If you would like a 'honorable Pole' badge or something, I think you have just qualified ;p" --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, I'm flattered, but how did I qualify? I lived in PL for only about six months, while working for the Warsaw Business Journal and learning to drink wódka properly. (I did better at that than learning Polish.)

Sca 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ghirlandajo seems convinced you are a Pole.

I guess he hasn't read my user page. I'm a fourth-generation American with Norwegian and German forebears, including a bunch of Volga (Russian-) Germans, and supposedly a bit of Turkish blood. (Seems the defence of Vienna by Jan Sobieski wasn't air-tight.) But one of my German great-grandfathers supposedly came from Pomerania.

Sca 20:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Spamming again?

During Halibutt's RfA, you have been informed by other editors that many of them consider your spamming of their talk pages unfriendly or offensive. Now I see you resorting to the same tactic in your frenzied anti-Ghirlandajo quest. Let me tell you that I don't think your attempts to incite more editors against me are particularly helpful to further your cause. You may have noticed that I don't ask Russian editors to comment on your shameful allegations. Please don't let your emotions to carry you beyond the limits of propriety. --Ghirlandajo 10:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

User Ghirlandajo you didn't even have the common sense to explain your edits on the mediation. Others have did, you didn't. -- Bonaparte talk 10:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

szopka

Wybierasz się na szopkę?  :)--SylwiaS 12:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ja tam nie mieszkam, a warszawskiej się naoglądałam w dzieciństwie. Ten artykuł wyskoczył mi wśród newsów o Polsce i skojarzyłam, że to Twój uniwerek. Tak przy okazji, coś na poprawę humoru w mojej piaskownicy.--SylwiaS 14:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Katyn

In Russian WIki its 11,000??

in German 14.552 Kriegsgefangene ermordet: Die größten Gruppen davon mit 4.421 in Kozielsk, 6.311 in Ostashkov und 3.982 in Starobielsk

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Oh My Goddess!

I posted a response to your comment. I would more than welcome you to join the FAC drive of this article. :) --Cool Cat 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Honorary Pole

After reading Ghirly's comments, it is my pleasure and honor to accept. Thank you! Umm now does this mean I have to stop telling "Polack" jokes? ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Kłamstwo oświęcimskie

You know, I'm on the verge of loosing my nerves now... . It would be better for me to avoid that page I guess... Halibutt 10:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)