User talk:Piotrus

You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Oh, Template:Talkback is ok. Thank you.

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.

Archive

Talk archives:

Reasons for my raising wikistress: Some general observations on Wikipedia governance being broken and good editors trampled by the system Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :) I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms. Current RfAdminship RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Sennecaster 137 0 0 100 17:20, 25 December 2024 5 days, 7 hours no report Hog Farm 2 168 12 10 93 02:47, 22 December 2024 1 day, 17 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 09:20, 20 December 2024 (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) Lesser Poland map Hi Piotrus, could you help me out with this very useful map: [1] I do not know how to add it to the Lesser Poland article. Thanks in advance. Tymek (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks man, you are the best. Tymek (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) DYK for Minor sabotage On October 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minor sabotage, 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. Royalbroil 07:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) extra credit blogpost Hello, I have done a post about the origins of the word revolution for extra credit. http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/10/origins-of-word-revolution.html Thanks Rgg6 (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Hello, Are we supposed to have 6 blogging points? I have 5, I do not think I missed any blogs. Also, was my extra credit post {above} not applicable for extra credit? Rgg6 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC) DYK nomination of Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw Hello! Your submission of Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw 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! ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 09:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Soviet invasion of Poland I have nominated Soviet invasion of Poland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Hi Piotrus, Thanks for doing this. I want to say that I can see your (positive) influence over the POV fights in articles related to Poland, and I consider the recent EEML predicament as completely uncharacteristic of you. (Igny (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)) The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009 Interview: Interview with John Blossom News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, 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) 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Wikibooks and suchlike OK, I know I might be considered to be one of the Boris Badenov type ;). If you think that joke is a bit obscure, hey, I'm mumbledy-mumble years older than you, so I have a somewhat deformed, and possibly senile, sense of humor. I honestly do think that if you can find any sources which could be added to Wikibooks, particularly sources which might not otherwise be available to us English readers, that would be as valuable if not more as being an editor here. I know a lot of people aim for GAs and FAs. If you look at my personal history, however, you will clearly see that I am not one of them, having none of either. I think it would probably be just as useful for the encyclopedia, and possibly even more useful than making a comparatively few GAs and FAs here. I acknwoledge that I myself can't read a lick of Polish, and actually even have a little trouble with German, which I took classes for, but I would be more than willing to do what I could to transfer material from there to here, particularly if it is on notable subjects we don't have covered yet. I know like a lot of other countries in Europe there are hundreds or thousands of individuals in Polish history who have established their notability, and, basically, earned mention. Particularly if you could find some sort of dictionary of Polish biography, history, or geography and work on that, I think that sort of a source, which would give us a broad base of material relevant to the history of the country, might be one of the best things we could do. And, if you were to want to go ahead on this for Poland or any other EE country, feel free to let me and probably User:Himalayan Explorer know. Right now, with Fritzpoll and a few others, we're kind of the point men for the less-well-covered parts of the world in general, which is pretty much everything outside of the UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe France and Germany, and would welcome anything you could do to help improve content for those areas. John Carter (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I was actually thinking about wikibooks, because I haven't yet encountered wikipedia books myself. Regarding your list of Poles, proper language prohibits me using any of the perjoratives which would follow "Holy ..." in my description of that page. It looks like there are about 20000 entries available there? One thing we could do, if you wanted, would be to request that you be allowed to actively edit pages related to Poland in your userspace, with them being moved into mainspace with the approval and consent of an uninvolved admin. Such arrangements have been made before, and I personally think that it might not be a bad idea in this case either. If you want to request that, let me know and I'll propose it, unless you would prefer to do that yourself or have someone else do it. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC) ANI notice Hello, Piotrus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Economic history of Poland Yes. The difficulty is that it's a potentially very large topic needing a very large article. So unless there's A LOT of work done on it quickly it might end up with lots of empty sections. The trick is to present a coherent self contained narrative that hits all the main points. Also, this is one that may be best first developed in user space until it's got enough content in it. Like I replied on my talk page, I'll see what I can dig up.radek (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC) group meetings Hi Piotr, Can we [group 2] have Nov 6 for our meeting? [Ragini, Kate, Jessica F, Jon, Melissa] Rgg6 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Hello, I am sorry, but one of our group mates had something come up so she won't be able to come on Nov 6. Sorry for the inconvenience, I will send another date ASAP. Rgg6 (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC) No problem I hope ArbCom listens to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC) re: B-class Review of Polish Underground State Hi. Since it has been several months since I assessed the article, perhaps it would be best if you requested an assessment at WP:MHAR. However, the fact that the article is cited predominantly to the same source is a major concern. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Is Wikipedia broken? Hi Piotrus, After reading your morsels of wisdom, I have a couple of questions/comments/rants for you. I have seen several times editors leaving WP claiming WP is/was broken beyond repair or something. I think such a claim is fundamentally wrong. The way I see it, Wikipedia is a complex dynamical system, with rather nontrivial internal interactions of a huge number of contributors and bureaucrats. Moreover, it is probably governed by certain laws under certain assumptions. There is a microscale (individual contributors editing certain articles), a mesoscale (groups of editors pushing their agenda in a group of articles) and a macroscale, the whole project evolving over years. On a microscale nothing matters. You, me can join, can leave Wikipedia, very few would even notice. In a matter of days, may be months names and contributions would be forgotten, the project would however survive. What is interesting to me is that your morsels capture certain dynamics on a mesoscale quite well. And that made me wonder if you can share your thoughts over the future dynamics of the whole project here. Not just some subproject, not just over the next few days, but the whole Wikipedia over years. That brings me to the next question. How can one claim the system of Wikipedia is broken? Do they understand the dynamics of Wikipedia better than me so that they see something that defies/breaks some natural laws? I understand that they joined the project to help it achieve a certain goal (whatever they set in their mind) and after a failure to do so, they leave frustrated. But to claim Wikipedia is broken? Why? What do they see that I do not? To me it is akin to claiming that the nature is broken after seeing that foxes eat rabbits. What do you think about that? (Igny (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)) DYK for Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw On October 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw, 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. JamieS93 07:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you A lot of people have said that, so I finally gave in and stood for adminship. I hope you get your mop back soon. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)