Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

The Recall Petition process

The petition shall operate as follows:

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

The modified RfC process (choice 1)

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

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

The RfAr process (choice 2)

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

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

Resignation (choice 3)

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

Grace period

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

No Double Jeopardy

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

No vexatious litigants

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

Severability

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

No withdrawal

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

Notes

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

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 K 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mimo wszystko, jeżeli nie głosowałeś Twój głos mógłby bardzo się przydać. Warto i innym zwrócić uwagę na głosowania. KonradWallenrod 07:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

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! - Kukini 16:57, 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. :) --Elonka 18:46, 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 Piotrus 18:53, 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. --Elonka 19:01, 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 :) LUCPOL 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article, Aleksander Krzyżanowski, was selected for DYK!

On June 14, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aleksander Krzyżanowski, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh My Goddess!

I am having difficulty locating source for the "cultural impact" of the serries. Any ideas where to look (preferably professional reviews)? --Cat out 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I humbly accept the award. Thank you! Páll 17:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you very much for your award as well! Much apprecated. Keep making and finding those great articles! ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus, I am honoured --Cactus.man ✍ 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

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/c 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Exactly what I wanted to say :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Or I will have to just practice self control. Mieciu K 16:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Henryk Wolinski.jpg

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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 00:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the gift :) --Molobo 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

About a license

Dear Piotr, I tried to fix the “Image:Jan Kochanowski.jpg” license but I am not sure if I did it well. Please, do you can check it? Thank you. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 09:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 17, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Science fiction and fantasy in Poland, 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.

“Image:Jan Kochanowski.jpg” 2nd.

That can be the mistake, since the source was en:wiki itself. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 05:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article, Henryk Woliński, was selected for DYK!

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.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Italian War of 1521

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 Lokshin 06:33, 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). --Irpen 20:16, 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. --Irpen 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Awareness

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. --Xyrael 21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 20, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aleksandra Piłsudska, 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.

— BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 15:58

Interwiki

Myślałem, że robot (np. Yurikbot) to zrobi. Appleseed (Talk) 18:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish Question

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. // FrankB 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 22, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Związek Walki Czynnej, 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.

da Vinci Barnstar

Check this out, da Vinci Barnstar. --evrik 15:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Major overhaul

I just moved your text to Misplaced Pages:Barnstar and award proposals/major overhaul. --evrik 19:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• check out my comments here, Misplaced Pages awards committee. Thanks! --evrik 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Co do Austrii

Polak był premierem Austro-Węgier w latach 1895-1897, zobacz Kazimierz Badeni --Molobo 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Taka mała ciekawostka

Przypomniało mi się w związku z pewnym artykułem Dzieło Rosjan. Myślisz że dodać do jakiegoś artykułu ? --Molobo 00:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 23, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Franciszek Ksawery Drucki-Lubecki, 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.

Austria treated Poles with tact

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. --Molobo 11:09, 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? --Loremaster 14:46, 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 --Molobo 16:30, 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 Talk 18:42, 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 Talk 19:14, 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 Talk 19:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Just Because. evrik 21:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Street Names List

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. Chicheley 23:00, 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·t 06:36, 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·t 01:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, please own up to your behavior and accept criticism. You were clearly edit warring. Sciurinæ made this change , and then in the next edit you reversed exactly that change. That is the definition of a revert. Then Irpen makes this edit, a revert of your revert , and then in the next edit you reverse exactly those changes . That is a revert. Then Irpen makes this edit, , and in the next edit, you reverse exactly that edit. That is a revert, and this course of edits is a clear case of edit warring. That is how it is defined (not how I define it). Those are the kind of edits that, on a much larger scale of course, got Molobo and Sciurinæ blocked the other night. As an admin, I am dismayed not only thatyou edit war yourself and to not respond well to criticism, but that when confronted with evidence of your edit warring, you are either denying it or don't understand why that behavior is disruptive (whichever it is, an admin especially should do neither). You said: "The evidence of misconduct I cited above is pretty evident and I hope some people who enjoy politics and rule enforcing more then I do will act on that, sooner or later." Unfortunately, according to your own complaint, now is later. You can't simply throw out dispute resolution like thatIt does not show a good effort to resolve the conflict peacefully; it means his edit warring will continue and yours will continue if nothing changes, and you are both culpable. Also, please take my advice above and simply describe comments how they are, rather than assigning them shock words like slander or defamation (which is not substantially different). Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 26 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. --Gurubrahma 18:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators is the place to apply, but there seems to be a threshold of minimum 200 edits before applying. All the best!! --Gurubrahma 18:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Slander

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. --Elonka 18:56, 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 Piotrus 19:12, 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? --Elonka 19:18, 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 Piotrus 19:39, 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. --Elonka 19:44, 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. --Elonka 20:15, 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)

Yet another DYK!

On June 25, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Constitution of the People's Republic of Poland , 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.

Thanks again! -- Samir धर्म 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi, I read the article on Constitution of People's Republic of Poland. 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 Hong 10:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

PIOTRUS BLASS (Piotr Blass)

JESTEM PIONIEREM SIECI W USA KOLEGA MICHNIKA I KANDYDATEM NA GUBERNATORA FLORYDY W ROKU 2006 PIOTRUS BLASS Z WARSZAWY WYGNANY W ROKU 1968 WWW.PBLASS.COM MOZE NAPISZ O MNIE ARTYKUL I PROPNUJE WSPOLPRACE ADRES NA MOJEJ STRONIE CZESC PIOTREK WWW.PBLASS.COM

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Antoni Heda, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Your article, His Master's Voice (novel), was selected for DYK!

On June 27, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article His Master's Voice (novel), 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.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 12:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

tag-tagging

Hello there. Could you take a look at {{POV-tag}}? Is it me or is tagging tagged tags is not the best way to deal with POV disputes? To me it seems like an attempt to make the whole POV tag obsolete. After all there's always someone who supports certain POV and someone who calls for its NPOVing... //Halibutt 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I suggest you should stop your anti-Ghirlandajo crusade. Please find something useful to do in WP. Your attempts to interefere with my edits are getting boring. --Ghirla 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

O, so this template was created by you? Interesting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. //Halibutt 06:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Poetry FAC

Hi - I'd appreciate a revisit to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Poetry; changes were made in response to your comment and additional input is solicited. In particular, we've tried to make this article non-Western centric without creating a single section devoted to "other" poetries, but by spreading discussion throughout the article. Thanks, Sam 22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Stanisław Lem

Perhaps creating a category would be a better idea? Appleseed (Talk) 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article nomination on DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article 1st Lithuanian-Belarusian Infantry Division, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Lithuanian resistance

Hi, regarding your request at User talk:Legionas#Lithuanian resistance, I've started a page in my userspace called User:Heqs/Lithuanian resistance during World War II. Help and feedback welcome. heqs 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Commons image problems

Please take a look at this and this ? On Commons:Deletion requests you're mentioned as an expert. Thanks in advance, NielsFTalk to me.. 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (also commons:User:NielsF, I'm there more often than here)

Comparative method

Hi! Thanks for your feedback on the Comparative method FAC. We've done our best to try to meet your objections - though finding more external links has proved rather problematic - but please do take a look and let us know what you think: any suggestions on how to further improve the article are, of course, more than welcome. Cheers, sjcollier 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Have replied on the FAC page. sjcollier 22:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Updating DYK

A while back you had asked about additional updaters. I've noticed that we're having less updating lately and additional updaters would be very useful. I commented here WPT:DYK#Additional_DYK_updaters about the process. If you're interested I think it would be great if you tried your hand at it. I would be happy to help in any way I could. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination for Michał Boym was successful

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Michał Boym, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your constructive criticism of the FAC for Cryptography, which became a featured article today. I appreciate your effort and attention! Mangojuice 19:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

PIOTREK BLASS

PIOTRUS STAY IN TOUCH MY WEBMASTERS PBLASS.COM I PIOTRBLASS.COM ZACZYNAJA TWORZYC CORAZ LEPSZA STRONE PRZYPOMNIJ MI JAK POMOC TOBIE W STWORZENIU STRONY PIOTR BLASS W WIKIPEDII CZESC PIOTREK BLASS

Nitpicking

Yes, you are nitpicking.  :) Ultimately, as I'm sure you can sympathize with, I'm trying to untangle links on several hundred pages, and I'm using my best judgment on whether to pipe/redirect/disambiguate as I go through, though some of the edit summaries may not be 100% perfect. Feel free to help, by the way. I'm working backwards from Sigismund III, so you can work on Sigismund I and we won't conflict. --Elonka 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

An even better question is, are you planning on moving them again, or do you accept the current consensus for English names such as Casimir and Sigismund? --Elonka 23:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

See, now that wasn't a clear answer. It makes it look like you are going to continue to fight this in the future, invoking WP:IAR as you go. I would be happier if you could just say, "Yes, I'd personally prefer the Polish names, but I can see that the consensus decision is to go with English names such as Casimir and Sigismund, and I will respect that." --Elonka 23:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Military history WikiProject templates

Yes, just adding the template to the talk page is all that's needed. I'll make a note of this in the FAQ, per your suggestion. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to bump up the ratings as you see fit. I'm not very familiar with Polish history, or with what is and isn't generally known in Poland, so the ones I put in were more for the sake of having something to work from; someone like yourself, with more specific knowledge of the topics, is probably in a better position to say how important those topics are.

As far as the three classes: there is actually a "Low-Importance" class used by other projects, which sits below "Mid-Class". Unfortunately, the general description for it discusses "trivial" knowledge, and there was a strong feeling within the project that applying such a rating to articles would cause an unacceptable level of ill-will internally. Hence our not using that particular class and starting everything one level up. It's something we might need to re-evaluate in the long run; but considering how much convincing was necessary to get even the idea of rating "importance" accepted by the project, I'm not particularly anxious to do it anytime soon. Kirill Lokshin 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The consensus so far has been that purely fictional topics aren't under the purview of the project. If you think that they should be included, then that's a separate discussion that'll need to take place first; figuring out how to rate them is a rather secondary concern. Kirill Lokshin 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for further reference (in case you haven't seen this before): the general scale. Kirill Lokshin 19:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Postacie historii Polski

Widziałam Twój głos w dyskusji na temat tej kategorii, dlatego postanowiłam skonsultować z Tobą moje wątpliwości. Mnie też się nie podoba nazwa tej kategorii. A co sądzisz o: Cudzoziemcy w historii Polski lub Obcokrajowcy w historii Polski. Przy czym w opisie kategorii należałoby określić, że chodzi tylko o tych cudzoziemców, którzy byli związani z Polską w jakiś szczególny sposób (no właśnie, w jaki? to jeszcze kwestia do przemyślenia, ale na początek zmiana nazwy kategorii to już coś). Ludmiła Pilecka 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Rozwiązanie jest (powiedział jeden admin), potrzebny jest jednak konsensus. Postanowiłam zatem przedyskutować z wszystkimi, którzy wcześniej zabierali głos w tej sprawie, pod jaką nazwę przenosimy. Czy obie przedstawione przeze mnie propozycje są według Ciebie do zaakceptowania i jeśli tak to która miałaby ew. pierwszeństwo? Ludmiła Pilecka 17:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Entente in Piłsudski article

While I was spidering the Józef Pilsudski article for disambiguation links I noticed several instances of a wikilink to the Entente article. However, there existed several Ententes and because this article dealt with Poland (and in one instance the Triple Entente didn't exist after World War I because of the Russian Civil War) I was even confused further. So could you please specify what Entente you were referring to? I went ahead and noted one and bypassed disambig on some but I want to make sure. Thank you. Aaрон Кинни (t) 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/07/05a

DYK

On July 5, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henryk Iwański, 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.

On July 5, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Student development theories, 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.

Mediation

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

DYK

On July 5, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Parasocial interaction, 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.

Hello

Piotrus -- thanks for connecting with me. I hope you found my contributions interesting --Mayuresh 22:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On July 6, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Perfect Imperfection, 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.

Teika refs

Back in a peer review for Fujiwara no Teika, one of your points was that it had insufficient referencing. Is it up to your standards now? --maru (talk) contribs 03:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

By elinks, I guess you're talking about the links out to the "Ex-Emperor Go-Toba..." article; is it the duplication that bothers you? 'Cause the "stable link" JSTOR provides for long-term linking of their articles is just that long. --maru (talk) contribs 12:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda confused- I thought linking the title of the article was accepted practice, and the current versions are indeed being piped like , although some seem to be breaking for reasons I haven't figured out yet. --maru (talk) contribs 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Peace offering

I am aware of the articles. Were you planning on including them in your translation sweep? --Elonka 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also really like this one translated: pl:Piotr Włostowic. --Elonka 22:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FBI

I have worked on the article. Please check it out. :) --Shane 02:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the two famous Fictionial Agents. Can you point them out to me? Also I was thinking about just removing that section entirily. Maybe by the time you get this, you will see updated sections on what you have commented on. --Shane 08:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We pulled out that stuff because it's not real. About fact, not fiction. I have completed your requirments. I found ref for the critism section and the crime stats are expanded. Media portrayal is already a good length. As I said above, this is about fact, not fiction. I am an expert on the FBI in more ways than one. --Shane 15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Help:Minor edit

Ok thanks for the clarification. Until today I considered almost all my edits minor. Mieciu K 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Rybenko

Dunno, my Polish is non-existant, so I will leave it for someone else to debate. P.S. thanks re userpage and I think I will see you at Wikimania ;) Renata 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/07/06a

Józef Kossakowski (bishop)

On July 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Józef Kossakowski (bishop), 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.

About two different Image:Jan Kochanowski.jpg

Dear Piotr: A couple of days ago I noticed some trouble with the Image of the Jan Kochanowski page. In the pl.wiki there are two Jan Kochanowskis, one from the XVII century and other from now a day. Somebody uploaded a photo from this second Jan, a modern politician, in commons:wiki just as Image:Jan Kochanowski.jpg. So his image and not the Great Poet’s one was charged in fr:wiki by mistake.

I tried to fix the problem naming one image as Image:Jan Kochanowski poet.jpg and the other as Image:Jan Kochanowski politician.jpg. This worked very well in pl:wiki (where I did even a disambiguation), commons:wiki and fr:wiki.

Nevertheless a notice appeared yesterday saying that in wikipedia there is not a Image:Jan Kochanowski poet.jpg. I quote: “Misplaced Pages does not have an image with this exact name. Please do not manually create this page. If you wish to upload an image called Jan Kochanowski poet.jpg, see Misplaced Pages:Uploading images for instructions.” http://pl.wikipedia.org/Jan_Kochanowski http://pl.wikipedia.org/Jan_Kochanowski_%28poeta%29 http://pl.wikipedia.org/Jan_Kochanowski_%28polityk%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/Jan_Kochanowski

http://fr.wikipedia.org/Jan_Kochanowski

Please help me if you can. Best regards. --Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 20:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

See you signed on WP:WFs

See:

• Category:WikiProject Fictional series
• Category:WikiProject Books
• Category:WikiProject Novels

and I've got a user box template somewhere in the edit stack. I've got to do real life stuff very soon, but should finish that by midnight. If you guys have an informal or formal Honorverse project page, can you fix the link on WPP:series for that. I putting up an invitation on HarryPotter sub-project as I speak <g> Otherwise, see ya later! // FrankB 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

<ref>-2006-07-10T08:39:00.000Z">

That DYK nomination looks better now. Could you please try using the ref-element (http://meta.wikimedia.org/Cite/Cite.php) so you can put links in a separate section on the bottom of the article and/or reference things multiple times with one link. I think that would make the article just that important little bit better. - Mgm| 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)"> ">

History of Solidarity

Hi Piotrus. I finished the reference change on History of Solidarity - I think it was a good idea to split it out of Solidarity. You've put a lot of work into this (it shows :). Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 17:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Cool. --Bookandcoffee 10:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Social science fiction

Hello, Piotr! I've passed the exams, and now I'm on vacations (it's a long story, e.g. I failed Quantum Mechanics twice, but ultimately got Good for it). I've done some changes on Social science fiction article and expanded it -- but the text is probably somehow raw (especially Post-Soviet section). Could you have a look on it, please, if you have time? ellol 00:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Grodno Sejm DYK

On July 10, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grodno Sejm, 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.

Worek Plan on DYK

On 11 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Worek Plan, 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.

Wikimania biography

Hi Piotrus. Is there any chance you could write a quick paragraph of biography for youself for the Wikimania Proceedings, rather than redirecting people to your Misplaced Pages userpage? Thanks. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 12:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotr on DYK

On 11 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Piotr Włostowic, 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.

Honorverse Wiki-Project

Hi Piotrus, this is Kathie from the Bar. Since both of us are frequent contributers to the Honorverse articles on Misplaced Pages, why don't we head up a project to improve and expand the Honorverse articles found on Misplaced Pages. --*Kat* 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Resignation

The reason why I appear to be a neutral editor is because I wanted to avoid the argument in general because I did not have the time to throw this and that back and forth due to school. However, I have held for a while the opinion that your behaviour as an administrator in the matters of the Polish sovereigns was not appropriate. I feel that you made attempts to obstruct the flow of Misplaced Pages because you allowed a bias to get the best of you. I am not one to make comparisons, however, I go with a lot of things on Misplaced Pages that I do not agree with and I am heavily involved in the renaming of articles. I'm sure you are an all-around fine Wikipedian (I am certain of that), but the renaming of those articles was not your shining moment. Fine Wikipedians may become administrator, however, that position puts one on eggshells. You crushed a few of them. Charles 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My main concern was the depth and concentrated effort directed towards these actions. I will be frank: You have a Polish bias as much as I have a German/Canadian bias or any other user would have such a bias. In fact, you may even be more qualified with regard to the content. It seems only natural. However, I feel that you let it get the best of you. I feel that instead of playing the devil's advocate, as one with such a bias should (I do this with German/English naming), you did not consider the importance of WP:UE among other things. What I gather from your response on my talk page is that you feel that this was a singular event. I hope it was. I will remove my request for your resignation. Charles 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

By depth and concentrated effort, I thought you were in a little deep and that you hadn't stepped back and looked at the whole picture. What I consider the singular event was this whole mess regarding the naming and the actions leading up to the request for your resignation. I'm sure you have made other mistakes and will make other mistakes, but I still feel that this was a fairly bad one. I feel you got through by a hair, but enough so that I withdrew my vote. Accountability and responsibility are golden qualities and so long as you consistently look for these project pages, etc, any mistake will just be a mistake and slip off of your back and become a non-issue. I am familiar with civility disputes myself. I have been the subject of at least three, one of which was "formal". No one is perfect, but we are all accountable. Charles 04:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Norbert Ubycha

Mógłbyś usunąć albo dać na AfD biogram tego niby sławnego piłkarza?? (zrobiłbym to sam, jednak chociaż rozumiem trochę angielski boję się go używać w miejscu takim jak to).PozdrawiamWtg87 13:04,12 July 2006 (UTC) PS.Wiem że jesteś inkluzjonistą ale chciałbym wiedzieć co tym sądzisz bo jak dla mnie to przykład samouwielbienia.

Battle stub proposals

Hi Piotrus

I'm taking the liberty of fixing the category names for the battle stub templates you've proposed. Both stub templates and category names follow a strict naming convention e.g. {{Poland-battle-stub}} but Category:Polish battle stubs (as you can see, the categories don't use hyphens and we use adjectives for those but the templates use the proper name of the country.) It is a minor matter, and I hope you don't mind me fixing this, however it is required under WP:WSS rules.

I believe one of our stub sorters (User:Alai) is still monitoring the Category:Battle stubs for potential new templates. WP:WSS normally creates new stub templates whenever an appropriate "group" of stubs (e.g. German battles) reach 60 or more. With the proper fixing of the category names, any of your proposed templates look like good candidates and any of them which can be applied to 60 already existing articles is almost 100% certain to be approved. Regards. Valentinian 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Outsider (comic) Flamarande

I noticed that you improved the article Outsider (comic), well it seems to have been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to vote according to your own opinion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Outsider (comic) (2nd nomination). Thanks Flamarande 19:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Węgierska Górka

On ], Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Example, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Error: Invalid time.&end=Error: Invalid time.&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Example Example), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Re: General User Survey

Hi Piotrus, the survey hasn't been touched for months (apart from your recent comments, for which thanks, and which I intended to respond to but haven't yet). However, if you have the energy yourself to take it forward, please do so. I know that Erik Zachte wanted to write a script (I think in Perl) so that the survey could be translated into many languages, and then delivered and fed back in a form that could be decipherable (to the researchers) without needing to translate each questionnaire. Again, if you were competent in helping with this, or think you know someone who could be, that would be very much appreciated. The sad fact of this survey, though, is that I talked with Erik about it at the last Wikimania, and there still isn't anything to show by the Wikimania coming up (which I'll be at, and I believe you will too - hopefully see you there). I'm a bit tied up with other things these days, but if you want to put some spark into the survey, you're very welcome to do so. Cheers. Cormaggio 09:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I haven't scrutinised your comments, but one thing that struck me was that we are not targeting this at Misplaced Pages or the English wikipedia - we most definitely wanted a multi-project, multilingual questionnaire. Translation would be done through a standard translation request on meta (presumably) - no need for machines! The idea was to have something with scripts and buttons, as you say - but do you think the subst: idea would be acceptable to someone filling it in? Even a newbie? And on the theory of questionnaires, yes, I think all of us are interested and at least somewhat competent in this respect - myself, I'm just finishing a MSc in research methods :-), and I know Kevin also works in this area. If we address how we are to address sampling, and we get the technical side of things done, then, yes, we are close to getting it going. Cormaggio 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I think with clear instructions using a subst template is easy, and after all we will be addressing people who already know some basics of wiki." I think this is already a dangerous assumption to make - the idea to do this survey is, after all, to ascertain the "state of the wiki", ie are people comfortable with the usability side? (even though we are not conducting a usability study per se); how new are people to the project? (and what project?), etc. This may be difficult to identify - if we advertise the study through, say, a banner, that is going to affect the sample - even going through recent changes would tend to pick out the most active editors. I think we were trying to find newbies as well as old-timers to give us a widely spread sample - the copying and pasting and logging out beforehand presupposes a certain level of technical skill that I think researchers deliberately shouldn't. Your idea would work, definitely, but it would be a slightly different study I feel. But don't let me stop you - i'm just offering my (hopefully) constructive criticism. BTW, have you beeen in touch with Erik or Kevin at all? And yes, looking forward to meeting you at Wikimania - if you remember, you completed a very helpful questionnaire for me quite a long time ago now :-). Cormaggio 12:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you participated in that study (see questionnaire J). Yes, wikis and education are definitely my thing - I've been active in trying to get Wikiversity set up - have you taken a look at the current proposal at all yet? What's a MT - a masters? I'm currently on my second masters which leads directly into a PhD - in which I'm going to be living and studying Wikiversity :-) (I'm basing my current Masters dissertation on Wikiversity but this is more the process by which it has been imagined, negotiated, organised, planned etc, and the PhD will be about how it actually works). It'll be great if we can find the time to talk about such things in wikimania - I'll be interested in attending pretty much the whole education track. Cormaggio 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Delayed reaction here - but thanks for the link to Iron law of oligarchy - have you written anything on the subject yet, or have you any links to any references (preferably journals that I can access online) on your angle/subject? Sounds like something I should look into.. Cormaggio 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A copy of your proposal would be great - I'll try to skim over it - at least the reference section :-). My email is cormaggio (@) gmail (dot) com. Cheers. Cormaggio 09:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On July 15, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Other Songs, 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.

Stanisław Kosko

Witaj - szukając materiałów na temat kapitana żeglugi wielkiej Stanisława Kosko zobaczyłem, że google wyrzuciło mi stronę Twojego brudnopisu. Czy posiadasz jakieś jego materiały biograficzne, które możnaby było opublikować na polskiej Wiki w kategorii Oficerowie żeglugi? Może sam byłbyś zainteresowany napisaniem stosownego artykułu? Pozdrowienia Wiki:pl MaciejKa - 13:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Article Contribution Counter

Here is the query you wanted to construct. ACC currently does support namespaces; however, because it is used on 100+ projects it uses the 'Project' namespace, rather than 'Misplaced Pages'. TDS | talk 15:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm sort of back, though probably not without time restraints.--SylwiaS | talk 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish-Romanian Alliance, 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.

Misplaced Pages:MtG

To be perfectly honest, the reason I didn't link em all together was fear of having them all deleted at once :)

You can see all six on the subpage of my image gallery (User:GeeJo/Gallery/MTG) or just follow these links:

• Artifact: Image:Rambot MTG Card.png (for Rambot)
• Red: Image:Wheel War MTG Card.png (for Wheel warring)
• White: Image:ArbCom MTG Card.png (for the ArbCom)
• Blue: Image:Jimbo MTG Card 2.png (for Jimbo Wales)
• Green: Image:COTW MTG Card.png (for the Collaboration of the Week)
• Black: Image:WikiCabal MTG Card.png (for the WikiCabal, though I'm thinking of uploading Willy on Wheels instead)

I'd originally set out to make a hefty set, but figured it'd be a bad idea to upload that many non-encyclopedic images to either Misplaced Pages or Commons, and it'd lose a lot of the impact if I had to display them as external links. So I settled for creating one of each colour. I'm glad you enjoyed 'em :) GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 21:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's definitely a problem — which is why I've stated on the pages that given the iffy licensing issues, I've no major objections if the images are deleted. They're just a bit of fun, really. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War

Hi Piotrus,

While reading through the article, I saw that there are {{fact}} templates in some places in the article, which presumably were not there when the article was promoted. Maybe you or someone of your colleagues knowledgable in this subject could reexamine it?

It would be a pity to lose another MILHIST FA, with all these reviews going on already... -- Grafikm 22:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you say so :) Honestly, I think the same thing as you do. Just thought you oughta know :) -- Grafikm 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I'm no expert on the subject, but I'll do my best :) -- Grafikm 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about locator dots on maps

Hi - Have you noticed the question I posted at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Maps#Locator dots? I'd really like to hear from some of the map "regulars" about this. And if you have any ideas for other ways I might solicit responses, please let me know. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Great sig

Just letting you know that I am impressed by your sig design and I will likely update minde to this, the design and effect are really impressive :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words! I would advise that you don't copy my sig directly but use it as an inspiration for your own design. Several other people have used it as a basis for theirs, which is flattering. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Customizing_your_signature if you haven't already. Keep the code to a minimum and please don't directly copy either the colours or the layout! Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about something like _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus}. But it's late and I will think more in the morning, I would like to achieve contrast similar to yours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you create a user sub-page for your experimentation and refer me to that, please? I don't want my Talk page to be cluttered with experiments! Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk) 

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

DYK

On 23 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle Isle series, 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.

Image:Teutonic order charge.jpg listed for deletion

CFR update

Per your suggestion, I updated the request at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 14#Category:Warmia-Masuria to Category:Warmian-Masurian Voivodship. Could you please pop in to confirm the change?

Also, your participation is requested at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 16#Category:Voivodships of Poland to Category:Voivodeships of Poland.

Thanks, --Elonka 07:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Another DYK!

Did you know? was updated. On 23 July, 2006, a fact from the article Polski Fiat 125p, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the great nomination -- Samir धर्म 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Life chances, 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.

BTW, sorry about the screwups with the Polski Fiat nom. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages MTG set

I only created the first card and I wasn't aware that there were more. :) If you can collect them all together, you should categorize them or link to them all from one page. That would be neat. On a releated note, one of the cards you linked me, Image:COTW MTG Card.png, may be in danger of deletion. It looks like it uses scanned artwork from a Magic card, I don't think this will be covered by fair-use. --JiFish(/_Contrib) 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Social promotion - more oddities

This article has been nominated again as a featured article. I'm sending you a note because you were involved in moves of the prior nomination notice. Ignoring the usefulness/validity of the nomination, there seems to be a problem with commenting on the renomination. Could you help (or notify someone who can help)?

Notice that if you click on "edit" for the Social Promotion article, the editing screen shows NO prior text. If you click on the name of another nominated article, by contrast, you see all the text in the section. And, judging by my experience, when you do add a comment, it gets put into an archive page. (And, perhaps strangely, not recorded on the "User contributions" log.)

Thanks in advance. John Broughton 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at the log of the nominating user for what he/she did on July 25th might be useful.

P.P.S. The log appears to show the archiving the comments of two people who object to the nomination. I'm not sure that has to do with the edit problem (above), but it seems noteworthy.

Thanks! John Broughton 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Tsar and Congress Poland

Hello Piotrus,

I wanted some advice from a Polish user relating to a dispute we've been having at Talk:Tsar. Basically, we've been arguing about whether Russian and Bulgarian usage of "Tsar" is to be seen as equivalent to "Emperor" or not, and also whether it can be seen as equivalent to "King." One thing I noticed was that Alexander I, after the Congress of Vienna, took the title of "Tsar of Poland," even though the state created at the Congress was the "Kingdom of Poland." I was wondering if the Polish usage could provide any help with understanding what the situation was with this. Am I correct in assuming that in Polish, "King of Poland" and not "Tsar of Poland" was used? Thanks. john k 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maly problem

Witam tutaj Tymek 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pracuje wlasnie nad artykulem o pilce noznej w Polsce w latach 1918-1939

I okazuje sie ze gdy chcialem dokleic kolejny rozdzial zostalem poinformowany ze artykul jest zbyt dlugi

Nie spodziewalem sie tego i teraz nie wiem co zrobic bo szkoda przerywac w roku 1936 gdy pozostaly mi tylko 3 lata do opisania

Co robic?

oto wspomniany artykul

http://en.wikipedia.org/Polish_soccer_%28football%29_in_interwar_period

OSA AfD

AfD'd per your suggestion. Please be more careful next time not to remove unrelated comments. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 00:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry, what comments were removed? (on my talk page)

These. I know it wasn't intentional, just giving you a heads-up.--SarekOfVulcan 01:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rv edits

Also on my userpage. The vandalism that took place was legitimate for a revert, and I seem not to have noticed legitimate edits, due to some small changes made by the vandaliser! Thanks for the heads up, my apologies, as always, I Assume Good Faith and apologise. Best wishes. M0RHI 01:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Table on Honorverse Characters

Sorry about how complex the thing is. I used one of those HTML/Wiki converters, and yikes. Anyway, if you know of a better way to do tables, feel free to re-do it! --*Kat* 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Holes

I agree that Ghirla's comment was a definite ethnic slur, and I would recommend taking it to ANI. --Elonka 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeszcze raz

Witam tu znow Tymek 17:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Pisac to ja moge - nie ma problemu ale problem jest w tym ze nie moge wiecej doklejac tekstu i nie wiem co z tym zrobic

A co do zrodel to dodam jak juz skoncze artykul opisy obrazkow uznalem ze nie sa potrzebne to sam sa same herby klubow plus dwa plakaty olimpijskie pozdro

Rzeczpospolita article

Hello. From your comment to Rzeczpospolita article on Polish Portal: ...and seems to misunderstand the role of administrators (who according to article verify and approve articles). Perhaps the following passage from the Polish Wiki could be interesting to you Administratorzy w MediaWiki (oprogramowaniu, na bazie którego działa Misplaced Pages) w Ostatnich zmianach widzą, które z edycji nie zostały jeszcze zatwierdzone przez któregokolwiek z administratorów. Zapewnia to, że każda zmiana zostanie skontrolowana nie tylko przez wielu zwykłych użytkowników, ale również przynajmniej przez jednego administratora. I think it does suggest something you criticized. Surprisingly enough I can not find a similar statement neither in English, nor in French version. Maybe a good occasion to edit this article? --Beaumont 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Crash space

Unfortunately as much as I would like to help, I will already be back home in NYC on that date! :( Páll 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sociology Project News

Move by Balcer

Please tell me you don't support Balcer's latest action. This is the kinda thing which destroys trust on wikipedia. Surely this name doesn't mean so much to you that you'd condone such an action. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New barnstar proposal

Hi there! I see that you previously supported a barnstar proposal for stub sorting. There's a new one I'm trying to drum up support for. If you like, you can see it at The Stub Sorting Barnstar. Thanks for considering it. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your new green signature

Your new signature is more than three lines in my window without the datestamp, uses some shockingly obtrusive colors, uses smaller text than the standard, and has its own span class.

Could you please use something a little lower-key? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was inspired by the sig of User:(aeropagitica). I wanted something that would be easily visible, but not to obtrusive, and I think I might have overdone it a little. I thought about making it smaller with <small></small> but you say that small text is bad, too...I am open to suggestions, see some of the ideas I played at User:Piotrus/Sandbox#Signature_testing_range.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not use your old sig, which was just fine? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I saw (aeropagitica) sig and I liked it. It is easier for me (and others) to find my own posts in discussions, keeping WP:SIG#Appearance_and_colour in mind I'd suggest everyone had some 'striking' element in their sig. But yes, I agree, I may have went to far. If you have any suggestions how to shorten my sig and make it somewhat less obtrusive, do tell.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not ditch the span classes and borders and backgrounds and just use colored text? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of 6b? It loses the span line, shortening it by about 25%, result is:  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk} . Yes, it is even smaller, but I think smaller makes it less obtrusive...? Compare to: -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I have to admit, the current color kind of hurts my eyes, too. It's distracting, and makes it difficult to quickly scan a talk page. I mean granted, it does make your comments easy to identify. :) But it's a bit on the unpleasant side, and when I'm just scanning "recent diffs", the amount of code can make some comments very difficult to parse. My recommendation is that you try something else. Of those at your testing page, I like #1 and #6a the best.  :) --Elonka 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 6a shows most promise, let me see what I can tweak with that (6a)  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  While on the subject of sigs, Elonka, have you considered addinga link to your talk page? It is very handy for others.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For now I am changing to 6d, it is much less obtrusive but keeps colorful talk link which should be enough for my primary purpose of making the sig easy to spot. Tnx for the comments, and any further suggestions are appreciated. If you think 6d has still to much code, I guess I could lose the span and go with 6i.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New signature (6d) test: -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's still three lines of code, and it's still really small. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:SIG#Length three lines is acceptable, but I will work on that. As for smallness, well, as I said, it can be either small or obtrusive, right? Although if you prefer I remove the small or sup tags, we can try those variants (but it will be more obtrusive then, I am afraid). See variants k,l and m.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The obtrusiveness is due to the bright green background, not the size. It can be both illegible from being too small and obtrusive from being a brightgreen block. I still suggest ditching the backgrounds and span classes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, the bright green background is gone, so I hope we dealth with obtrusivness. Small size I don't believe is a problem: people don't really have to read anything but talk, after all we have our share of users with completly illegible sigs (for example using non-Latin characters). Remaining small background servers to make the sig visible on cluttered pages and I would prefer it remain. Border is not necessary, but I think it is a nice touch.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If I remove the small tag (version 6l) my sig is only a half a line longer then yours, and safely withing the 'two or three lines' lenght requirement of WP:SIG:

_{<span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span>} 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

vs

] <small>(] | ])</small>

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Honesty

Piotrus, I was very surprised to see the recent post of yours at AN/I , where you said, I am not currently involved with any content dispute with user Ghirlandajo, and so Irpen suggestion that I try to gain something by this block is a sad example of bad faith on the part of an otherwise reasonable contributor. Huh? You absolutely are involved in a dispute, and a major one, about the naming of the Jogaila article. How can you justify your statement? --Elonka 03:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to stop useless personal attacks against me.

Saying things like "as you both seem to think that WP:CIV is a useless policy. May I recommend AfD it first? If you suceed I promise never again to bring the issue of your incivility up." are blatant personal attacks, and I would rather prefer you avoiding them. If this was an attempt to try and make me using insults or things like that, well I'm not Ghirla and never use those.

Admit, Piotrus, that the war between you and Ghirla is no longer a matter of content or opinions, as, like you said, you never edit the same pages. It is just a useless personal war. -- Grafikm 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What's this, building a phony case against one of the few editors who had the guts to stand up to Ghirlandajo's harassment? Pathetic. I would suggest you look into Ghirnadajo's edit history (inluding his most recent announcement) for loads of actual "blatant" personal attacks. More newspeak and turning the tables around hoping to turn attention away from the actual problem on our hands, i.e. Ghirlandajo's incivility towards other users. Pathetic.