User talk:Piotrus/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Władysław Odonic

Hi Piotrus, I just finished the translation of Duke Władysław Odonic from Polish to English. Please check it out and let me know your opinion. Thanks!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

hey Piotr

I fixed the line u told me to fix. I dont understand how and where all of my information went. None of my sources are cited anymore and i think thats why i got that copyright complaint.

Thanks John EAster (Jeaster89 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

DYK nomination of Puławy Legion

Hello! Your submission of Puławy Legion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MuZemike 03:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional problems

Sociology of health and illness has problems as well. I've only tagged the section I know to be problematic, but there may be other problems. I will definitely not have time to do full text review of this myself, as it can take quite a while. :/ I've notified at User talk:T.starr.green. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

First World has problems, too. :( Again, I've only tagged the one section, but there may be more. Some of the text was added here. Some was added here. I've left notice at User talk:JFA7. I'm afraid that I really don't have time to do an in-depth search of the text here to be sure that there aren't additional problems. I hope that MLauba will be able to help with that, but I'm already pushing it by editing now. :) I'm out of here in about an hour, and I'm not done packing. Bad timing. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I wish I could but I just can't do it in the time I have left. :( It's a bit time-consuming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad you've found some additional issues. I'll be happy to help review for more, but it will probably be Sunday before I'm able to do so, as I won't be back to my computer until then. I don't expect to be able to get online often or for long while traveling. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Polukrbat

Lithuanians contribute a platoon to the battalion, thats why they were included in the infobox. Ceriy (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the e-mail

Checked my archives as well, and they just aren't there. Shall we begin again? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks

If you are going to restore redlinks to a list,[1] please also include a source? Just saying that they have an article on a different language Wikipedia is not sufficient. Thanks, --Elonka 02:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Puławy Legion

On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Puławy Legion, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Im so confused

I don't know what happend. the only thing i tried to do was to fix the copywrite problems. And the next thing i know our article is missing alot of stuff. and i thought someone else did that. I just need to know how to refix it. (Jeaster89 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Yes. I did see the link. and I believe i went in and fixed what i needed to. And also There was a line from my section that was directly taken from my soucre. but i thought if it is cited with a reference you were allowed to do that. i did not know you couldn't. Everything else was fine. (Jeaster89 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

The actions taken between the 24th and 25th just removed about half of the article wholesale. I reverted that, in particular since it actually left the copyright violation in place. I also added the copyright problem template to the second section. The part on Swine Flu was a minor problem, I rephrased the first part of the paragraph, then quoted Dr. Henry Miller's own words the way it's supposed to be done.

To clarify, what is acceptable is a short quotation of copyrighted text if it serves to illustrate a particular point of view. When that is done, it needs to be clearly identified as a quote (the way I did it is one among several, but it really sets the quoted text apart from the rest).

The reason we do that is to avoid that another contributor later on comes along, misses the fact that it's a piece of text copyrighted to somebody else and starts to rewrite it.

So it is not enough to just paste a sentence and then put a reference at the end, you need to clearly mark it as a quote from someone else.

You can read up more on MOS:QUOTE, the part of the Manual of Style that deals with quotations.

Now to the other issue, Africa. The lead sentence is still a verbatim copy / paste of the source.

The paragraph talking about life expectancy would be fine in its present state, except for one major problem: it has been written by paraphrasing previously copy / pasted material from FREDERICKSON, creating an unauthorized derivative work.

If nothing else, I hope this example will explain by itself why we insist the text be rewritten entirely from scratch in the temporary subpage. As this demonstrates, the biggest problem we face when copyrighted text is introduced in an article at some point in time is that it "taints" the work of all revisions coming after it.

I do not want to discourage you here but this does require rethinking the African section over again. What I'd like to suggest is to do the following: read the sources you have, and only the sources, carefully. Once you're done, open an edit window on the African or South American section. Delete everything but the <ref> {{cite...}} </ref> text, it's a pain in the arse to rewrite those.Now picture yourself in the situation: you're in a classroom, and your professor asks you, out of the blue, to briefly explain to the class what the sources are talking about. You have no preparation time, you just stand up and explain what you took away from these sources.

Write that in the African and South American sections. Most importantly, behave as if the copy / paste function had never been invented in the first place. And you'll end up with useable text that is entirely your own. I'm looking forward to read that. Best, MLauba (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

extra credit blogposts

Hello, I only have one point in my extra credit blogposts while I have done two -

http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/11/polygamy.html

http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/10/origins-of-word-revolution.html

Rgg6 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Piotrus. You have new messages at Dekimasu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade

On November 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations to us! I'm taking credit of this too . — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just saw you don't read other talkpages ;) Thanks again for added me as co-author in the nom; I remembered that ;); and for placing the above template on my talkpage :) — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Message

Replied on my talk page. Ucucha 19:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions for arbcom candidates

Hi Piotrus, Thank you for your questions relating to the upcoming arbcom election, I have endeavored to answer them here. Please do not hesitate to post more questions if you see fit. Unomi (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Duchy of Belz

On November 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Duchy of Belz, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Pittsburgh, copyright problems

Hi. I'm sorry, but Economy of Pittsburgh has problems, too. :( I've identified major issues in the first section and further down. I haven't yet identified who placed the content--if it was all the same individual--but I'm off to evaluate now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've identified one source of problems here, with text introduced by User:Jpd26. Here, with User:Rach3191, there seems to have been a misunderstanding. S/he put quotation marks around the text, which suggests that s/he might have believed such extensive use of copyrighted text is okay as long as you indicate that it is copied. Clearly, this would suggest no clear idea of how much change is required to create a new, copyrightable text, since s/he removed the quotation marks around that material after removing some of the text and placing other text in parentheses further down. I do not know yet if problems are limited to what I've found or to contribs by these two. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Copying the content to the subpage is probably a good idea, but we're not supposed to publish the material there, either. Do you think that your students would be able to work on it behind the template there? Or trusted to replace the template between sessions of working? My big concern at this point is that they not create derivative works, which can happen if they try to revise line by line. As I know you know, revising copyright problems can be very tricky for people who aren't completely familiar with how to handle sources. I can't imagine there was intentional intellectual property theft here, particularly with edits like Rach3191's. :/ Seems well-intentioned to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, often "sofixit" with copyvios means "so delete it", because we don't have the manpower working on copyrights to rewrite content. Removing the copyvios is imperative, and in addition to the regular couple of dozen copyvios we deal with every day, we've got literally thousands of articles to go through at WP:CCI. The CP process works to give contributors a chance to fix the article, but if they don't (and often they don't), frequently the content is selectively deleted and the last clean version (if there is one) restored after the seven day listing period. If there's no clean version, we frequently lose the article altogether. While you may have noticed that the top of my user talk page advertises continually for WP:Copyclean, we just really haven't attracted that many people who have time and interest in rewriting this text.

I want to be clear that I understand what you're proposing here. I haven't finished reviewing this one, but have adjusted the template at Food power. Do you propose that I simply remove the blanked content from the article, leaving the presumptive clear? If so, is it your idea that the students would work on new content in the article space? We would need somebody to verify that their revisions don't create derivative works. We already know they have issues with copyright.

As for identifying the individual, I typically try not to highlight that to reduce embarrassment, but I can see the value in situations such as this.

Obviously, when a problem is first discovered, it can take considerable time to verify that the rest of the content is clear. I could not just blank the sections in which I've located issues, for instance, before I've verified that the contributor (or contributors, in both of these cases) have not violated other copyrights as well. Going through an article's history can be very time consuming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, I'm one of the copyvio cleanup crew and have MRG's talk page watchlisted.

I don't know how practical or feasible this is, but I for one would be extremely interested to get some feedback from your charges on what their reactions were when they were first confronted with the fact that their contributions were in violation of our copyright policy. What was their line of thought / reasoning when they added the material? Did they understand the concerns raised? How did they come to terms with them? How did they integrate notions like derivative works or WP:Close paraphrasing? How did that affect their rewrites, and their subsequent contributions? What proportion among them believes in good faith that they did nothing wrong?

This kind of insight could be invaluable to us to help us re-think how we communicate our policies and the related guidelines, and I think we'd all love to hear these stories, if collecting them were doable. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to but in here as well but I just found this conversation important. My group members that are working on the Economy of Pittsburgh with me as well as myself I think are having difficulty because of the subject of the article. We have always had good intentions not trying to unlawfully use any material, but we are unsure on how to paraphrase because most of the information is statistics. This is why I feel some of the edits are too long of quoted material. There just isn't many other ways to say what we find. What I am getting from this is that pretty much every thing should be rewritten in our own words/paraphrased and at the same time contains no original material. This is just very frustrating being a new wiki editor and I think wiki could have easier ways to go about this.Tuna12 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just note here (redundantly, since I did so as well at my talk page) that I'm only aware of one other issue in the list at my talk page, and it's already been overwritten with clean content. I think that the rest are free at least of major concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

proto-globalization

Your talk page is certainly quite cluttered with complicated GA review arguments/questions! I'll just join the melee, if that is ok:

you wrote: 'The time of the Roman Empire and it trade links with China are certainly notable in the context of proto-globalization, as they form one of the early world systems. That said, this is relevant to archaic globalization, and proto-globalization covers a much later period, and as such while the article could use a section summarizing the earlier history of globalization, it should not be the article's main focus.'

You're right of course, & I will try not to make too-whiny of excuses for my lack of making a better effort to draw my written/researched section on "pre-proto-globalization" to proto-globalization, except to say that (a) I was really having trouble focusing on the scope of how to sort of "introduce" the world system as it lead up to proto-globalization, and kind of wussed out there and just picked my favorite nations/the ones I've encountered in my college education thus far. (as a Classics minor I am very biased as to the influence that the Roman Empire had on the modern world, and from our article reviewer's opinion I can see others do not share my view...also does this count as "original research" in that area, which is against wikipedia's policies? I thought it might but I have not yet been accused of this) (b)communication between my group members has been limited and as you can see the organization & flow of the overall article is less than stellar in terms of each "sub-topic" relating to the other/what proto-globalization is.

My real concern is, should I completely rewrite & refocus my section at this point? Or cut it entirely and maybe focus on editing & fixing the sections researched and written by everyone else? I ask because, of course, I am concerned for my grade on this assignment. :-/ Toasterlyreasons (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All my email accounts have been disabled.

All my email accounts have been disabled that I used to connect to Wikipedia. I am awaitng google's assistance. For now please be warned that if anything will be posted be my that seems strange I won't be me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMoloboaccount (talk • contribs)

Food power

Hello, Piotrus. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Politico media complex

Well, at this point in a normal GA I'd fail them for lack of response. What do you want to do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you get them to start addressing my comments? I'd like to not run up against the deadline, and there's lots of work to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Piotr,

Thank you for the heads up regarding the EU section, I will rewrite it within the next few days. Hope you had a good thanksgiving! Kmm131 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pax Tatarica

Hello Piotr. How can we redirect Pax Tatarica to the Pax Mongolica article? Also, a guest editor has made some additions to our article, see Personnel Exchanges during Pax Mongolica; however, the graphic added to the section seems to be a scan of page 6 from this book: [2] Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia by Thomas T. Allsen. What is to be done? --Gxlarson (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind on the re-direction. I just figured it out... --Gxlarson (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Copyright

Piotr - I am a bit confused. Does my entire section on outsourcing need to be re-written or can I just place the text in quotations marks to show it was directly taken from another article? Your help would be appreciated! JFA7 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Piotr - As you know i've begun work on re-writing the outsourcing section of our article. When will the copyright warning be removed from our article and replaced with the text i've been composing? Thanks! JFA7 (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Impact of Globalization on Women in China

Piotr, should we schedule a group meeting with you to discuuss our article? Ajr36 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

I'm so sorry I didn't notice your added question until just now when I went to review the page. I've given it a go and hope that addresses your concern. Shell ^babelfish 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Meeting

Piotr,

Can I please schedule a time to meet with you ASAP regarding my section of Group 7's article? I am very concerned about the issues surrounding our article and my section and want to amend this situation without serious ocnsequences as soon as possible. Thank you! Emm66 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Question answered

Hey, sorry for the excessively long delay, but I've answered your questions for the ArbCom election. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like to know. Thanks! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Meeting

Yes, I can meet after Wednesday's lecture. Emm66 (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotr, I have made what I deemed the neccesary changes to amend the issues in my section, located here. Please let me know if you see any other issues concerning copyright, and I will fix them immediately. Our group plans to meet to improve the flow and cohesiveness of our article, as well as amend the issue of Western bias. Do you have any recommendations as far as how we might address the bias without completely altering our article? Emm66 (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll

• News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more

• In the news: Reports of Wikipedia's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Food Power

Piotr, Do we need to have a group meeting with you or something like that? is it still possible for our article to receive good article status? I am worried.

Dorothy R Smith (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well i have not made edits because the sections have been removed. When will the clean sections that shaq did not put up be returned? I cannot change the page numbers etc. that we need to do without being able to re read my edits and my information to find where i got it from.

Dorothy R Smith (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Because you like scary orange messages so much, here's one: I confirmed T:TDYK#Jakub Wujek Bible. Ucucha 20:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Meeting

Piotr,

Would you like to meet with me after tomorrow's lecture or next Wednesday's lecture? I was confused by your email. Thank you! Erika Moul Emm66 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article nominees currently on hold

How do we get rid of this hold?--Dam59 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jakub Wujek Bible

On December 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jakub Wujek Bible, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Still remains - my #5. No hurry, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that you had added another question. I've responded. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML arbcase

I've been watching (and occasionally commenting) on the EEML case, and we've chatted before about the nature of disruption, what constitutes real disruption, mudslinging, and other such topics. I've tried to answer yours and others questions about what the arbs think is so bad that you all need to be banned/topic banned in an open, civil, and objective manner. I've usually taken the position of the majority of arbs simply because of the nature of the questions, like saying "well they are topic banning you and calling 'this' the evidence, so apparently they are taking 'this' as disruption via <insert disruption type here>, and here is what I concider a reasonable explination why". I admit that there are some things you are accused of that I consider credible, and others I consider very much lacking in the proof department.

This one, however, had me reeling. Taken from Bainers new FoF's.

argues to keep the article, "since it is a snowball anyway, and it may be a good proof that sometimes I disagree with some of you and agree with Offliner..." [20090625-0245]

Taken at face value, thats very damning. It is, at its very core, a prime example of the deceptive editing practices you have been accused of for quite some time and like a rising tide, it elevates the credibility of all the other accusations of bad faith. It undermines every attempt of yours to reach out to people that disagree with you.

Please do not take this as an effort to antagonise you. This is an honest request for you to rebutt the above statement as clearly as possible. I'm putting this on your talkpage because I don't think another 'ZOMG LOOK WHAT POITRUS DID!' post is worth anything on the case page (also I'm hoping in vain that a dozen people dont show up to jump down your throat before you get a chance to answer). I'm looking for your responce to this before I cast any jugdement. You at least deserve the oppertunity to defend yourself, and yes I am prepared to listen and take what you say seriously. I will not hold it against you if you choose not to answer, as that is your right. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon, this is a very simple case: I meant all I said in the email and on wiki. I am an inclusionist, I thought the article should be kept, it does show I and my colleagues can disagree, and it was a snow keep anyway... what am I missing? PS. You may want to use a browser with a spellcheck. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a reasonable answer. The jump from your interpretation and my interpretation is rather large, though, and I find myself having trouble making it. I suppose the real answer is hidden behind the question of if you would have voted keep if was not already snowed. That can't be told, of course. I keep reading it again and again, and I try to take you at your word... but it still leaves a bad taste. I'm sorry.

Feel free to archive this, I am satisfied with your answer and I'd rather it didn't lie around your talk page as flame bait. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am an inclusionist. I would never, ever vote delete, just because somebody asked me to, or to push a POV and destroy encyclopedic content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify. I don't want what *I* said to become an invitation for other people to pile on with accusations and such. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) Well, there's really the point. Is the mention of something going on a "canvassing campaign" — which assumes the EEML members created the list for the sole purpose of edit-warring and for infesting WP with its mono-nationalist-lithic plague, or is it a group of editors interested in the same topical sphere who, in the end, express their own thoughts and bring their own sources to the argument and couldn't give a rat's ass whether or not other EEML members agree, let alone rush in to blindly support one another. (NOT!) As I've mentioned in the case evidence, there were many explitives over contentious issues, but as they were nevertheless done as personal expression, not personal attack, dialog could and would always continue. Sadly, in an atmosphere where timing is everything (based on timings I'm accused of responding to "canvassing" even though I read email once a week and check Wikipedia multiple times a day, sad but true), no one seems to care about the intent of the list, only the about the black and scheming hearts of its members.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

transwiki from pl wikipedia

By anybody yes please put your name down. We need Polish speaking editors to help list and trnaslate articles from Polish wiki into English. Given time Fritzpoll hopefully will add a Polish missing article directory for people to translate. Ideally we'd have a bot transferring articles too but.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You can sign your name at the foot of Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Polish. Yes basically the project is geared towards identifying the full list of missing articles from others wikipedias, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Danish/Missing articles directory for instance which are bot generated (articles without en: links on the other wiki). Soon enough the Polish directory will be drawn up and make it easier for people to work through the lists. Well the idea is to translate articles in their entirety from the other language wiki into english but often the quality may not be brililant but the subject notable so it would be a combination of translating and finding external lsources to support what is being said. You then credit the author of the foreign wiki article on the talk page for example {translated|pl|Frederic Chopin}. There are two sides to the project one is starting missing articles and translating and the other is expanding existing articles which are tagged with e.g {Expand Polish}. I'm sure you've seen these about. Well the tag puts them in categories to be translated. Unfortunately we have an enorumous amount of existing articles which need translation let alone the mililions of missing articles in the various languages so what we need above all else is numbers who speak "foreign" languages and are able to consistently process articles from other wikipedias into english. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so as polish wikipedia is a different site to english. Ideally it would be solved as Kotniski suggested to have one encyclopedia available in different languages. as one project. That would maximise the contributors and avoid such probelms of uneveness between wikipedias but is not of course without its problems. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML

Please try and choose your words more carefully. The term stalking carries a number of negative connotations that are best applied in other circumstances. KnightLago (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, if you have questions on the case, it is best to email them directly to the committee. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry about the email responses you have received. However, email remains the best way I know of to get your questions answered. KnightLago (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

On the development of articles

Is it possible that in a year, or five, or ten, some formerly private wiki is brought into the light that shows the original the collaborative development of articles that were later added to Wikipedia in one consolidated edit? If this is possible, was any consideration made to copyright situation on this private wiki? Did it take a few weeks to figure out how to manage the copyright? If it was quicker, I worry that copyright wasn't considered deeply enough. I hope the answer to the first question is "No" (or "Not to a great extent"), or else that those involved are much more clever than I am. I am having a difficult time imagining how to execute such a thing (especially with Europeans involved) were copyright is not a substantial problem. If you don't know of anything like this going on, please quash the idea if ever someone suggests it. The problems are very likely insurmountable and the longer the development of such articles are kept hidden the more difficult it will be to save the articles when it all comes to light.--BirgitteSB 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to hear there is nothing to worry about right now, but I wish you might understand the basis of my concerns. I don't want to see EE articles end up in one of the giant copyright investigations because the people posting the edits didn't entirely write the creative content themselves nor giver proper credit to those that did. Obviously I also have other entirely different concerns about how this might happen which I am ignoring for the moment. But I thought this particular concern might be one you might feel equally to me as it directly concerned the fate of the articles. I am worried it might be something those involved might not completely consider. You are in the loop there, so please pass on these concerns if people ever consider doing something along these lines.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Writing up experiences

Sure. I'm not sure how much it will differ from describing a typical day at the CP job, but there are a few differences. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

EU

Piotr,

Hello. I know you made a comment about rewriting some of the European section and I did. I just wanted to make sure it is ok and falls within the guidelines of wikipedia. thanks Kmm131 (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

For being specific instead of general in your FoF in the EEML case (I refer in particular to the Canvassing findings). Could you consider a rewording of the Disruption findings to resemble those as well? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. I wanted to note that I've recognized the issue you've raised some time ago, and proposed a surgical remedy that gained community support (as preferable to a crude topic ban). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on identifying further examples. Re remedies, I will vote on those once I've finished with the findings of fact, however I'm unlikely to support a remedy based on that proposal. --bainer (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. As long as we are operating on the level of specific examples instead of vague generalities, it should be possible to clarify certain things and learn from errors made. I find "seven instances of canvassing" much, much more helpful than vague "edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution". I see that you are supporting this proposal - you aren't going to propose an alternative with a better wording (specific, numbered examples) then? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for pointing out the specific diffs. I find it very helpful in understanding the situation. I do have however one clarifying question: would it be correct to say that many of the diffs listed where not disruptive due to their content, but where disruptive due to the way they originated (i.e. being improperly canvassed)? For example this edit introduced a better referenced version that has been stable for the past 4 months; or here I was restoring referenced information removed without explanation by a now-permbanned editor. Hence the content-improving quality of those edits is not disputed, but the problem arose since they involved improper solicitation (canvassing)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

To an extent, yes. In the first example you give, had you and Molobo worked on the Kr%C3%BCger material on his talk page (which of course, he could still access even as a blocked user), then there would not have been this problem, as the process could have been subjected to all the normal editorial scrutiny. With regards to your second example, the substance of the content is of no concern to the Arbitration Committee; rather, what concerns us is you asking for other people to perform reverts for you so that you would appear not to be performing many reverts. --bainer (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK

I left some comments at T:TDYK#Constance of Greater Poland and T:TDYK#Polish-Ottoman alliance. Ucucha 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Graph and Chart

I was asking you in class if I was able to use a copy and pasted chart and graph. I have found a graph from a government web site [3] that I should be able to use I just have no idea how to put it on as well as the chart I found[4] any help for getting them on the article page at a bigger size than the current thumbnail we have on the page would be appreciated. Thank You Tuna12 (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Polish-Ottoman alliance

On December 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish-Ottoman alliance, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sociology review

Hi Piotrus. I have significantly improved the sociology article since you last gave your opinion as to whether or not it might be worthy of GA status. Would you care to reconsider, or lend further advice? The scope and topics section, in particular, has been greatly improved. If you yourself know a lot about sociology, which I assume you do, bearing in mind your reviews of Erving Goffman, Anthony Giddens, etc, why not help get the article get to the next level - I appear to be the only one editing it apart from vandals!!--Tomsega (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

extra credit blogpost

Hello,

I have done an extra credit blogpost regarding nationalism versus patriotism here: http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/12/nationalism-versus-patriotism-extra.html

thanks Rgg6 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Extra credit wiki edit and late blogposts

Hi Piotr! I just wanted to let you know if you didn't already, that I finished the western bias piece for our article and removed the literature section as our group decided. I changed it around and added somethings and I posted it to the article Chinese literature. I made comments on that talk page as well so hopefully this will count as extra credit.

Also, I know that I still have comments and blog posts that you told me to make up during thanksgiving. I am working on them, but I tried to get this project done first as well as studying for two finals that I have so I will be able to get all of the missing blogging assignments completed by Friday evening, early sat for partial credit. Is that going to be okay?

Please comment on both of these issues and leave me a message. Thank you! Ajr36 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

• From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

• Editorial: A digital restoration

• Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

• Interview: Interview with David G. Post

• News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

• In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)