User talk:Piotrus

File:Kyokpae banner.png

File:WikipediaSignpost icon.png You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Thanks in advance. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

Archive

Talk archives: Archive 1 (moved Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (moved Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (moved May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (moved July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (moved September 27, 2005), Archive 6 (moved November 23, 2005), Archive 7 (moved January 7, 2006), Archive 8 (moved 19 March, 2006), Archive 9 (moved 6 May, 2006), Archive 10 (moved 28 July, 2006), Archive 11 (moved 17 June, 2006)

Have seen worse days. Reasons for my raising wikistress: this and that. Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :) To remind me not to take things too seriously around here! If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that, at my discretion, I will either: seek community approval of my adminship through a modified RfC; (no consensus == no change) (see separate section for process) choose to take the matter to ArbCom; (see separate section for process) resign my powers "under a cloud" and possibly stand again for adminship at some later date of my choosing; (see separate section for process) once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria and the matter concerns use of my admin powers at this wiki rather than a non-admin editing concern (use the standard dispute resolution mechanisms), a use of CheckUser (use the ombudsman process, or take the matter to the Audit Subcommittee, as appropriate, if standard dispute resolution does not resolve the matter), or actions at another wiki (use the processes at that wiki). The rest of this page fills out particulars and commits to certain processes in advance so as to reduce ambiguity or the possible perception that I will change the rules as I go along to get the desired outcome. Note: This page has a talk page because I value input and feedback on this whole thing. There's some lively discussion there already, and you, gentle reader, are invited to comment as well. The Recall Petition process The petition shall operate as follows: A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be selected by me to make sure that the petition process itself is smooth and that the requirements for petitioners are satisfied. The petition start time will be constituted as when the first eligible petitioner announces intention to recall by posting on my talk page. Ineligible petitioners (as judged by me) will not start the process unless I choose to waive eligibility for that petitioner. Such waiver shall be binding. If it takes longer than 24 hours to find a clerk and begin the process, the petition start time will be constituted as when the page is created and ready for use. A page in my user space will be created with sections for certified, unknown, and uncertified petitioners. If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated, but is not required as a condition of participation in the petition process. Deleting, or arguing for deletion of, the petition page by a petitioner, however, shall cause that petitioner to be disqualified from certification of the petition, unless I explicitly waive that disqualification. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable. Additional sections may be added as the community desires for comments of whatever sort. These shall have no bearing on the petition outcome except to sway public opinion. The clerk is empowered to enforce decorum at the clerk's (and my) discretion, subject of course to public opinion not looking kindly on suppression of expression. I reserve the right to waive eligibility and numeric requirements at my sole discretion on a case by case basis. This means that I can deem a petition certified when it strictly would not have been. However this is only a waiver, it cannot make anyone ineligible or raise any numeric requirements. Waiver of requirements for one person does not waive them for others by default. The clerk will move petitioner signatures from unknown to certified or uncertified based on eligibility. After exactly 5 days the petition shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible petitioners. If at least 6 petitioners including the initiator are eligible, the petition shall be deemed certified and the next step of the process will be initiated. (the next step is one of the three, Modified RfC, self initiated RfAr, or resign "under a cloud" and stand for RfA at some later date of my choosing) as given above, at my choosing... the decision may be announced in advance of certification, at my option, but need not be. The modified RfC process (choice 1) This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The modified RfC will be constituted as follows: A page in my userspace will be created. Certification of the RfC will be waived. If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated but is not required as a condition of participation in the process. Arguing for deletion, however, shall cause that person's comments to be stricken or construed as favorable to retaining adminship, whichever is appropriate or more favourable to me, at my discretion. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable. A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be appointed to make sure that the RfC process itself goes smoothly, and to determine eligibility where appropriate. Preference would be given to the same clerk that clerked the petition, if that clerk is willing and if I feel they have done an adequate job. The RfC will be started by referencing the entire text of the recall petition Two questions will be included: Should I keep my adminship/Should I resign my adminship Anyone qualified to vote in an ArbCom election, as construed in the most recent previous one to the initiation of the petition, or one then ongoing, whichever is more favourable (looser voting requirements), can sign under either of these two questions. Those not qualified will have their signatures and comments moved to sections that make it clear what their views are, but that do not count toward the total. Any other sections desired may be added but will not have bearing on the outcome except to sway public opinion At the end of exactly 5 days the modified RfC shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible commenters. If a simple majority to retain exists, I will not resign. If tied, or if a majority does not exist, I shall resign. Resignation shall be construed to have been "under a cloud", and if I wish to regain my adminship I will have to stand again via the normal RfA process. Those that consider this not to be an RfC are welcome to give it whatever term they wish but these process steps will be used, and supersede standard RfC process where there is a conflict. The conclusion of the RfC after the outcome is certified and my action is taken, if any, will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including starting a regular RfC, initiating an ArbCom case, etc. The RfAr process (choice 2) This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The RfAr will be initiated as follows: I will initiate the case myself, perhaps with assistance from the petition clerk if the clerk is willing. I will name myself and the certified petitioners as parties. I will state that I feel sufficient notice has been given to all parties. I will incorporate, by reference, the petition, and ask that arbcom consider it as evidence. I will ask any arbitrators that were petitioners to recuse but leave that decision to their good judgement. I will otherwise cooperate in whatever way possible, answering any questions asked to the best of my ability. I reserve the right to present material in my own defense. I reserve the right to suggest that other persons be named as parties. I undertake to carry all this out in the shortest reasonably possible time consistent with external events. Final determination of whether to take the case rests with ArbCom but I will strongly recommend that the case be taken and I would certainly appreciate (but not require) petitioners to also so strongly urge/recommend as well. If ArbCom declines to take the case, that concludes the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases. I reserve the right, but not the obligation, to initiate either choice 1 or 3 in this case. (I will try to be reasonable) If ArbCom takes the case, their judgement on principles, findings, and remedies will be binding on me, I will not work to circumvent them. The conclusion of the case will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases. Resignation (choice 3) This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The resignation shall be constituted as "under a cloud" meaning that a re RfA has standard success criteria as then constituted by the community and that withdrawing midway through is not an option for regaining admin status. Only a successful RfA will suffice. I may choose to stand again for RfA immediately, at some later date of my own choosing, or never, as I deem appropriate. Grace period Any change in any provision of this that makes it more stringent to qualify a petition or participate in any other part of the process, or more likely to lead to an outcome more favourable to me shall have a 2 week "grace period" during which any recall initiated will be under the old terms. Any change that is of the opposite sense (easier to qualify/participate, less favourable to me) shall go into effect immediately. No Double Jeopardy Once this process concludes for matters raised by petitioners during an instance of this process, I will not honor a second recall request regarding the same matters. If however new matters arise, the community is welcome to initiate another recall. No vexatious litigants No petitioner may initiate or support a petition for my recall more than three times in any 365 day period. This does not apply to participation in a modified RfC. Severability This is about my commitment to the community to be accountable, not about a category membership. Thus, the provisions of this page shall survive if, for example, the CAT:AOTR (or successor, whatever named) is deleted, renamed, listified. etc., and under any other reasonable circumstances. Only my explicitly stated withdrawal from this commitment itself will suffice. No withdrawal I do not intend to withdraw but that's an intent, not a promise. However, I promise not to withdraw to escape the consequences of this commitment. The only time I will withdraw from this category is if no recall is currently underway. This is subject to the same 2 week grace period as the eligibility or any other changes, so any withdrawal has at least 2 weeks to go into effect. Notes 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 [1] Administratorzy w MediaWiki (oprogramowaniu, na bazie którego działa Wikipedia) 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 (Die pienk olifant) 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Sociology Project News Sociology Project • News • August 2006 The Sociology WikiProject has been re-activated and new developments are afoot! We are putting in place some tools for classifying, categorizing and assessing sociology-related content on Wikipedia. Please have a look at the Tools section on the project page. Also, the Sociology article has been identified by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. This article has been listed as a good article for meeting the criteria for this category of articles. We're going to be working to improve the article to Featured article status. Please place Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology on your watchlist and Get involved! You have recieved this newsletter because you are listed as a participant at WikiProject Sociology. • CQ 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 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: <sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC) vs [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</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 [2], 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 (AutoGRAF) 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.247.158 (talk • contribs) I suggest you create an account and stop harassing everyone. And incidentally, Piotrus advised you to create an account to... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC) I replied on your talk page, Im sure you will understand that it is Ghirlandajo who needs to review his behaviour. Full (reconciliatory) reply there. 83.5.247.158 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC) PS Forgive me Piotrus, I have been labelled a troll by some, which might be used against you, just wanted to let you know that you shouldnt cave in under the pressure of the unjust comments of a few. 83.5.247.158 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Yes, and when you take off your mask and register, maybe people will consider you to be a person, instead of the troll that you object being referred to as. For an anonymous user you sure do seem to know the ropes and the ins and outs of WK. I've personally stated that I doubt that you are user:Molobo, since you seem to be a lot more intelligent than he was. Dr. Dan 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Piotrus knows as well as I do that I warned Ghirla several times about his incivility. P.S.: Piotrus, what's up with your talk page layout. Comments don't seem to indent? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC) I apologize Grafikm for the confusion, the remark was not adressed to you, as you are a very civil editor, it was adressed to Calgacus, who is not. As for the indent problem, I've noticed it lately, but have not figured out how to fix it yet. Will try to do so soon.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Stop the slander please Piotrus, do you want to ease it down with the slander. I was only trying to defend Ghirla. Attacking the character of everyone who speaks up for him hardly looks good, especially considering you are supposed to be behaving like an admin. I'm only on wikipedia to write articles and keep things NPOV and help maintain fairness. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC) I don't remove comments from my talk page, as some other editors do, but your accusation of slander is just another violation of WP:PA in your record.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC) seeing that in your very last edit before this one, you very maturely called for a return to content creation, you do not look very good here. It's ok to have an ego, Piotrus, but if you hysterically jump at anyone criticising you, people will stop listening to you, much like to the boy who cried wolf. Now try to follow your own advice and forget this all happened. dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Do tell were I am "hysterically jump[ing] at anyone criticising [me]". Do you mean my reply to Calgacus? I am sorry, but when somebody accuses me of slander, I feel I should reply. If you would be accused of slander, would you not reply? I am sorry, but for me lack of reply equals silent agreement, and I don't agree with Calgacus I am slandering him (of course he never provides any evidence for his accusations). Unless you think I should consider this a WP:DFTT case and remove the comment from my talk?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Actually, I often see lack of reply as "Maturity enough to refrain from kneejerk reactions to uncivil statements." There is great wisdom in the saying, "The person to listen to, is the person who speaks the least."  ;) --Elonka 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC) I will take this into consideration. :) Hopefully those are the last aftershocks of this incident...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC) DYK Did you know? was updated. On 28 July, 2006, a fact from the article Virtual reality in telerehabilitation, 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. Many thanks for the nomination. I thought it was a brilliant choice for a topic on an article, and hope that it benefits from the exposure of the main page. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Proceedings by edit status Hi Piotrus. I think your questions should be answered by the Guidelines for contributors. Submissions will be advanced through the edit statuses by the editors. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Well, the reason for that is that only one person has sent us the text of their presentation yet (well, actually the image -- it's a poster). We should be sending out an email to all the contributors shortly encouraging you all to send in your texts, and then things will start moving up through the categories. The Guidelines are linked prominently from Proceedings:Introduction, which is the page that the 'This page is part of the Proceedings of Wikimania 2006' header at the top of every page in the proceedings links to. You can contact the Editors either through our talk pages or by using wikimania-program at wikimedia.org. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Template translation Can you please update this to be in English? Or is there some reason that it should stay in Polish? {{Subdivision term polish}} --Elonka 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Max Weber at WP:FAR Wikipedia:Featured article review/Max Weber. Do you think that you could remember which source the different facts came from? Jkelly 04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Rewriting the marxism article Hi, I was hoping you could look at User:JenLouise/Marxism proposed and give me your ideas. I think you'll see from the outline that I've created, that I have really big plans for creating a Marxism article that is structured and comprehensive and deals with everything that Marxism implies. It's a big task, and I need as much help as I can get! Cheers JenLouise 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Lodging I already have someone staying with me, although I'm not quite sure when she's leaving. I'll see if I can find out her travel plans in more detail. moink 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) John I Albert of Poland Wouldn't you prefer John I Albert, rather than having the "of Poland" form? The "of Poland" format doesn't seem to be popular, we might be better deciding now to just go for name and nickname, and have a big vote in the future about the use of the "of Poland" format for all Polish monarchs. Regards, --Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Question about Polish phrase What does the phrase Prawo ulicy mean? It is the Polish title of the U.S. TV series The Wire. I ask because I want to add the information to the English article. Thanks. Andrew Levine 09:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks again for the quick answer. Andrew Levine 15:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Piotr Blass This article Piotr Blass is a clear vanity article. It author can be easily found by tracing his ip address. This is a clear violation of WP policies. Please help me to deal with this as I am unable to fight him alone. Thank you. Mhym 13:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Signature I know it isn't my place to ask, but could perhaps alter your signature slightly, since it's causing text problems on T:TDYK. Feel free to ignore this, but it seems to be overlapping text at present. Apologies, Highway Return to Oz... 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Wojciech Bobowski I noticed you had included a link to Wojciech Bobowski while it did not exist yet. I just created this article a couple of days ago. Would you be so nice to take a look at it? Perhaps you can find some Polish-language information about the man, whom I find very interesting. I hope to be able to include more information in the near future, and translate it in a couple of languages, hoping to attract other contributors. Best regards, Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Serdecznie dziękuję! You did a great job. I was surprised to find no article about the man, he truly deserved one. Would it be appropriate to include the lyrics of (one of) his psalms? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC) On 3 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wojciech Bobowski, 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. DYK When I was updating the template the suggestion was getting too old, we're not short on suggestions. You have at least 2 or 3 articles on the template each week anyway.--Peta 23:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Abu Mansur Daqiqi I'm afraid I can't be of much help to you when it comes to this article. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Favor? Piotrus, hope you don't mind me asking, but can you move Bishop Roger de Beaumont to Roger de Beaumont (bishop). I opened the article with this name because I couldn't think of another, then another user did a cut and paste move to the better title, which had to be reverted, thus preventing a non-admin move. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC) crash space hi Piotrus, i apologize for not getting back to you sooner. unfortunately i listed my name under the 'crash space available' list several months ago when i thought id be living elsewhere, so sadly i am unable to shelter you. sorry and good luck finding crash space!--gozar 03:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Flying University on DYK On 5 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flying University, 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. -- Scott eiπ 17:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Extra Edit Buttons Following suggestions from yourself and Ingoolemo I have updated the dev version of XEB. The new version includes: The ability to change the order of the buttons as requested by yourself The ability to hide buttons or show 'non-default' buttons. An optional set of buttons for adding references. These buttons are copies of those current in Ingoolemo's XEB script. These extra buttons are optional and only appear if requested by the user. This new development version is in the form I would like to go live with and should include the main changes that were originally requested. The only thing missing is the other buttons requested by you (eg. Disambig)- these can be added later. Details (including how to make the extra refernce buttons appear) can be found on the XEB page. I invite your comments before I move the code to the live version. --MarkS (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Edits on SU Upon reviewing the diff, it appears I reverted your edits on SU by accident. Sorry about that, and sorry about my late reply. As you can probably tell, I haven't been too productive on Wiki for the past few days. Still, I'm sure my activity will increase again someday. 172 | Talk 01:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Nicknames Piotrus, why? I don't care what the Polish WP does about nicknames for the kings of Poland (-Lithuania); but the style is archaic in English, and WP has good reason (being able to type in [[Casimir I of Poland|Casimir I]] without checking) to avoid them where possible. What virtue am I missing here? Septentrionalis 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC) English appears to be different, even with Polish kings. Numbers alone seem to be more commonly used, and to disambiguate adequately. Septentrionalis 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC) List of Poles Czy jesteś pewny, że wolno Ci udostępniać spis treści PSB na licencji GFDL? PSB jest dziełem zbiorowym: czy może Marek Jerzy Minakowski dokonał wyboru sam? I aby nie ma podpisanej jakiejś umowy z wydawnictwem i może swobodnie dysponować swoim dziełem??? Ułożyć listę najbardziej znaczacych Polaków to nie w kij dmuchał, na pewno nikt nie będzie miał do tego zastrzeżeń? A.J. 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) W Polsce ustawa jest taka: Art. 3. Zbiory, antologie, wybory, bazy danych spełniające cechy utworu są przedmiotem prawa autorskiego, nawet jeżeli zawierają nie chronione materiały, o ile przyjęty w nich dobór, układ lub zestawienie ma twórczy charakter, bez uszczerbku dla praw do wykorzystanych utworów. Twórczy charakter listy nazwisk z PSB z pewnością dałby się obronić w sądzie... A.J. 07:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Aha, w razie czego tłumaczenie, że serwery są w USA nic nie daje: prawo naruszasz Ty, jeśli mieszkasz w Polsce, lub pan profesor, kiedy udostępniał Ci listę na GFDL bez zgody pozostałych twórców listy lub wydawnictwa, jeśli nabyło z góry prawa do wyników ich prac. A.J. 07:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Jestem lekkim paranoikiem, ale wystarczy mi jeśli spełnisz moją prośbę i porozmawiasz o tym z prof. Minakowskim. Możesz też zwalić to na mnie i dać mi do niego namiary (email, telefon, cokolwiek). Pozdrawiam! A.J. 09:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Oczywiście jestem za, najchętniej zawartość wszystkich bibliotek na świecie widziałbym na Wikipedii, Wikiźródłach lub Wikibooks :) Znalazłem gdszieś email do profesora, ale wypróbuję go dopiero w przyszłym tygodniu. Na razie! A.J. 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Unspecified source for Image:Cover of book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Cover of book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Kimchi.sg 03:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC) talk:polish september campaign I am here to ask you to provide your opinion on mine and Halibutt's "discussion" on the talk page of polish september campaign article. it has gotten out of hand, and I want this finished, I do not know why, when he states that "both names are equally acceptable" that he removes the one from everywhere on wikipedia except the actual article. --Jadger 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Extra Edit Buttons - Dev Version Thanks for being willing to look at the new version. I am only making very minor changes to the development version at the moment (e.g. replacing a couple of the images) so you can run the development code directly in place of the live code. At the bottom of your monobook.js you are including the live code using: // Script from User:MarkS/extraeditbuttons.js document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/extraeditbuttons.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>'); If you replace that with: // Script from User:MarkS/extraeditbuttons.js XEBOrder="A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T1,T2,T3,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,1,2,3"; document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/Extra edit buttons/dev.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>'); then you the development code will run instead of the live code. If you have any problems just put the original piece of code back (or revert it). Things to note: The XEBOrder variable controls which buttons get displayed and the order they get display. Move the letters round to change the order of the buttons or remove one of the letters to remove the button. If you don't define XEBOrder in your monobook.js then a default set of buttons is displayed. The buttons T1,T2 and T3 (see XEBOrder in the code above) are the new buttons for building footnote references, I think this is one of the things you asked for. The extra edit buttons shouldn't crash if you put a button in XEBOrder that doesn't exist. You will need to force the cache of your browser to refresh when you first use the development script. Let me know if you have any questions. --MarkS (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Tłumaczenie miesiąca na WP-PL Witaj, nie wiem czy wiesz ale Konstytucja 3 Maja jest aktualnie tłumaczeniem miesiąca na WP-PL? Czy nie masz jakiś gotowych fragmentów po polsku, które być może tłumaczyłeś na angielski ? Byłoby to a little ironic gdybyśmy teraz z powrotem tłumaczyli na polski. Pozdrowienia, Kpjas 09:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Thx I'm watching those pages... but usually I do not have much to write there. I also usually don't start naw articles on en:wiki (my English is "2" but much better as passive ability, than active ;)). On the other hand I can help "Poland related" community with graphics on commons (if there would be some problem), because I'm one of sysops of Polish language. Radomil talk 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Wojciech Bobowski: copyright problem Hi there, There's a copyright problem with part of the following edit of yours: [3]. The sentences about Ufki's Psalter are literally identical to a paragraph in the booklet accompanying the Sacred Bridges CD. I have therefore removed those sentences. Hope to add more information about the Ottoman Psalms later. Best regards, Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Survey etc. Take a look on your discussion page on Wikipedia-pl or give me your e-mail address (polimerek at gmail com). Polimerek 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Template or category Interwiki reports should be aggregated into some easy to access tool, like the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Wikimania 2006 template.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) I don't think so. Wikimania and the ArbCom stopped; the interwiki would never stop; because were going to go on and on. The publisher, Ral315 also agrees with me. Carmelapple 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Piotrus, could you please check Commons:User talk:Piotrus for a deletion warning. Cnyborg 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Central European military history taskforce Seems like I brought our lead coordinator lots of trouble with my proposal on your discussion page. Well, we are two natives, I am really keen on an opinion and you have some reputation. Wandalstouring 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Good morning. Look for more detail on the Polish military history taskforce talk page and the German military history talk page. Greetings Wandalstouring 09:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Accountability I've changed my User:Lar/Accountability page.. you may not want to transclude directly but rather take a copy. Or maybe you agree and are fine with it. Or maybe I should parameterise it? Happy to work with you as needed... ++Lar: t/c 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Wikiproject Cześć. Chciałbym Cię zaprosić do nowego Wikiprojektu - Wikipedia:WikiProject Upper Silesian Industry Area zrobionego na wzór najszybciej rozwijanego Wikiprojektu na polskiej Wikipedii - pl:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Górnośląski Okręg Przemysłowy. Część tekstu w projekcie trzeba przetłumaczyć, mam nadzieję że zrobisz to w jakieś wolnej chwili. Projekt ten ma na celu stworzenie bazy do poprawiania, rozszerzania oraz tworzenia nowych artykułów dotyczących GOP-u, w tym Górnośląskiego Związku Metropolitalnego i samych Katowic. Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL 22:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Discussion about Ukraine hist stub Piotrus, I read your earlier comment regarding the UA hist stub: I'd be happy to use this stub and vote 'keep' if I am appraised of any similar vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Per your request, I wanted to notify you about the renewed discussion HERE. Thank you for your support. Regards, --Riurik 05:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Dzieki Dzieki za powitanie!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawel bielsko (talk • contribs) Islamic Wikiproject Award Would you be so kind as to go to the discussion about the Islamic Wikiproject Award? This has been a proposal that has lingered for donkey's yonks. I think the image is acceptable as a WP:PUA, but don't think the image is in line with most of the images at Wikipedia:Wikiproject awards. The design is not well supported, and right before I was going to archive the debate for lack of support, someone else moved it to the Wikiproject awards page. The current discussion is going on here: Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Another_image. Your input is appreciated. --evrik 03:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Your images on Commons Please read here. --Ptr ru 09:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC) DYK On 18 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ambassadors and envoys from Russia to Poland (1763–1794), 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. They were both on the template.--Peta 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC) I notified the original creator of the cursed soldiers article, and added the talk page template (which has the date on it). Since the template itself is not archived in anyway there is really no way to keep track of what appeared when - except the talk page templates.--Peta 01:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Mikka's original research on vodka Hi Piotrus, I think I mentioned this before, but please take a look at Vodka; User:Mikkalai has outdone himself in a paragraph of nonsense about "the second half of the 1970s witnessed two massive attacks on the priority and rights of the Soviet Union to market liquors named "vodka"." [4] I've removed this a couple of times already, but as usual he simply reverts with a near-personal attack and refuses to engage on the talk page, where I laid out my reasons for rejecting the passage, which seemed to gather support from other users. However, as this passage was in the article for two months without anyone removing it until I did, I fear it will return unless others are vigilant. Regards,  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Using wikipedia as a teaching tool Hi there. It is great to find people working on the same ideas. I posted this proposal a couple of weeks ago in a blog hosted by the Chronicle of Higher Education. Since then I have received some interesting feedback, and the idea is developing rather fast. please, let me know how we can team up... thanks! From Conventional Classrooms to Online Workshops My name is Adrian Lopez Denis and I am a PhD candidate in Latin American history at UCLA. In the last two years I have been looking for ways to incorporate the open source model to collective forms of historical production. From the beginning, encouraging professional historians to contribute to the development of the wikipedia project emerged as the most obvious approach. Most professional historians are both researchers and educators. Besides conducting their own specialized studies, they are often expected to provide hundreds of undergraduate students with a relatively wider understanding of the past. Completing a history course usually requires writing research papers, journal entries, annotated bibliographies, or book reviews. Students are expected to produce a certain amount of pages that educators are supposed to read and grade. There is a great deal of redundancy and waste involved in this practice. Usually several students answer the same questions or write separately on the same topic, and the valuable time of the professionals that read these essays is wasted on a rather repetitive task. In the process of essay writing, students use an array of resources, from the overpriced textbooks and readers they are expected to purchase to more readily available online tools like wikipedia. Some of us would perhaps push for deeper levels of inquiry involving books on reserve, open library searches, or even the occasional dive into local repositories of primary sources. In most cases, however, the entire process will be a mockery of actual research. As long as essay writing remains purely an academic exercise, or an evaluation tool, students would be learning a deep lesson in intellectual futility along with whatever other information the course itself is trying to convey. Assuming that each student is writing 10 pages for a given class, and each class has an average of 50 students, every course is in fact generating 500 pages of written material that would eventually find its way to the campus trashcans. In the meantime, the price of college textbooks is raising four times faster that the general inflation rate. The solution to this conundrum is rather simple. Small teams of students should be the main producers of course material and every class should operate as a workshop for the collective assemblage of copyright-free instructional tools. Because each team would be working on a different problem, single copies of library materials placed on reserve could become the main source of raw information. Each assignment would generate a handful of multimedia modular units that could be used as building blocks to assemble larger teaching resources. Under this principle, each cohort of students would inherit some course material from their predecessors and contribute to it by adding new units or perfecting what is already there. Courses could evolve, expand, or even branch out. Although centered on the modular production of textbooks and anthologies, this concept could be extended to the creation of syllabi, handouts, slideshows, quizzes, webcasts, and much more. Educators would be involved in helping students to improve their writing rather than simply using the essays to gauge their individual performance. Students would be encouraged to collaborate rather than to compete, and could learn valuable lessons regarding the real nature and ultimate purpose of academic writing and scholarly research. Online collaboration and electronic publishing of course materials would multiply the potential impact of this approach. Users outside the class, the country, or the continent could benefit from the work of the students. Course projects could be run on relatively closed websites associated to traditional scholarly institutions. The output from these sites could be periodically uploaded into larger repositories based on a more open model of intellectual collaboration along the lines of the wikipedia project. An even bolder move would be to base entire courses on the creation of actual wikipedia entries. Under this principle, the interaction between classmates and larger online communities could be immediate and continuous. Students could run a wikiportal, write a wikibook, or even be fully integrated in an electronic course within the wikiversity. Discussing the advantages, disadvantages, and larger implications of the wikimedia model of collective intellectual production could be a valuable educational experience in and on itself. Changing our approach to in-class writing assignments could be rather significant. We could produce a huge repertoire of dynamically evolving instructional materials, created by students and for students, professionally edited and collectively reviewed, free and copylefted. It could be very difficult to convince many of our colleagues about the practicality of dumping the results of their promotion-giving, sabbatical-swallowing, and ultimately unwelcome original research into such an anarchic pool of information as wikipedia is today. It would be easier to alter our current approach to essay writing in the history class, recycling an otherwise dull operation into a socially productive and intellectually stimulating practice.