User talk:Nihil novi/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Nihil novi, and

to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

) 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Nihil novi/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions related to joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us .

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Witam Nihil novi,

i think it is described on

a link to your english page. Would be more compfortable to find you here ;)

Boleslaw Prus ...

... has moved. Regards, 149.229.98.21 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you, dear anonymous Samaritan, and Bolesław Prus thanks you! I am much more adroit at writing, editing and translating than at the more arcane Wiki-procedures. I will learn more of them eventually, if I live long enough. For now, your generous help has added a useful illustration to this article. Thanks again! Nihil novi 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine fine fine, have it your way, Copernicus is Polish, Alexander is Greek and Leonardo is Italian, right - way to educate the masses. A lead is supposed to introduce the subject right? In the book I'm looking at, what I added is in the first sentence. It isn't an "unnecessary intrusion" but then I'm now so mad with this pile of inaccuracy, I'll take my input elsewhere. —The preceding

) 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Marie Curie

Sorry for my imperfect revert there. It's fixed now. --

Guinnog

18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Conrad

I do not understand why you remove from Joseph Conrad´s article the fact that he witnessed as a small boy the decline and dramatic death of his mother and later the death of his father. Andreanrc —The preceding

) 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Did I? When?

Your textual additions of today require editing for correct English idiom, grammar, spelling and punctuation. Nihil novi 07:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You made far reaching edits to article

Meanwhile, the previous well established term used to describe Sukiennice can be traced back to other similar structures written about in Wikipedia, such as:

• Cloth Hall, Ypres
• 1st White Cloth Hall of Leeds in England
• 2nd White Cloth Hall in Holbeck, Leeds, England
• 3rd White Cloth Hall in Leeds city centre, England
• 4th White Cloth Hall in Leeds
• Cloth Hall
  (disambiguation) etc.

I don't want to get entangled in reverting your creative edits, so please bring the "cloth hall" back by yourself. Thanks. --Poeticbent  talk  15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

trade guild

."

The White Cloth Halls in

Cloth Hall, Ypres

, in wool and cloth.

The term "Drapers' Hall," which I used, in no way resembles "Draper Hall," a

Oklahoma University; and I don't understand the reference to Herbert James Draper

.

Nihil novi 18:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert the article? J. D. Redding 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because you're making an awful hash of it. Nihil novi 04:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Any specific point? I was trying to get the beginning cleaner and get rid of the [citations needed] ... please state specific point of concern ... 04:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

An appropriate inline citation would have sufficed to get rid of the "citations needed." Nihil novi 04:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Could have sworn I'd recently seen it written "Frantiszek"...but maybe I've just gone all Czech again. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. K. Lásztocska 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago I corrected the wrong form "Warsaw University" to "University of Warsaw", providing extensive explanations in the Talk page, why one is wrong and the other is right. You have undone my correction and the reasons you give for your change show that you have not read my explanations. I do not want to engage into any kind of editing wars, but please, read my explanations and would you please revert your change yourself? Yours Fon 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the following statement, which comes from the official website of the University:

We kindly inform you that in accordance with the new Statute of Warsaw University of June 21, 2006, the English name of our institution has been changed as of October 1, 2006 to the University of Warsaw. Both names ( Warsaw University, University of Warsaw) are equally valid and may be used on information materials/symbols etc., until the end of academic year 2006/07 - that is, until September 30, 2007.

Other explanations are provided in my request for the moving of the article. Fon 21:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edit. Much better now. Dr. Dan 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. -- Doctormatt 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing,

) 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PTSD

Hey, Nihil, I just wanted to drop you a note and say good edits on the

PTSD article. I undid just that one that noted punctuation and commented to the reason on the Talk page, but wanted to let you know that I appreciate the other edits and didn't mean to sound negative to you or your edits; I don't think I did either. Anyway, thanks for contributing... it reads a lot better now! VigilancePrime

21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I just wanted to point out that, in the last almost week, you and I have made virtually every un-reverted change. Check this comparison out, with 59 intermediate edits. Of course, when I say "you and I" what I really mean is a tiny bit of me and a whole lotta you. Excellent work and dedication and amazing string of improvements to the

PTSD article; very much appreciated. VigilancePrime

05:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a pleasure helping to edit "

PTSD." Especially as there has been no anonymous fanatic there like the one we've been contending with for the past week at the "Translation

" article.

The "

PTSD

" "Veterans and politics" section seems to me reasonably neutral. Couldn't the "disputed-neutrality" tag be removed?

I appreciate all the work you and your colleagues have been putting into this important topic, and your willingness to entertain suggestions.

Nihil novi 06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, I do agree that the section is reasonably neutral (as a veteran and one that could be borderline for military-related PTSD, I hold back a little so as to keep my own comments on it as neutral as possible), but at the same time the section is a total mess, from unreferenced statements to poorly-formatted references to more unreferenced statements. I think that, in order to preserve the section's credibility, the Neutrality-dispute tag can come off but needs to be replaced with a does-not-cite-sources tag for now, at least until the section is better-written/referenced. I don't challenge any major parts of it (though a couple parts I find doubtful or, at the least, minimal) and would like to see better referencing. Yes, I do realize how labor-intensive that is, which is why I'm not volunteering to do it! (at least not right now) My $.02 ... and probably overpriced at that. :-) VigilancePrime 06:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nihil novi, I just wanted to tell you that the same annoying (un-)discussion on the relevance of standards and on a readable and informative way of mentioning them is going on in the German article on translation... I'll try to find the time to write a new section on the standards for the German version asap and see whether this will work as a compromise. If it does, I'll let you know so you can put it here. All the best. --Margit Brause 06:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got a first German version now, you can check it out at de:Übersetzung (Sprache). (If it's still there by then, that is...) I don't know yet when I'll get around to researching the relevant standards for the English text (ASTM etc.). --Margit Brause 08:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now there's a first Englisch version, which promptly got undone by VoA Bot II as vandalism... :-) I'm not quite current on the standards situation for English-speaking countries, but I hope this is at least better if not good. --Margit Brause 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I like your user name (regardless of whether it means "nothing new without the consensus of all" or "nothing new under the sun"). I've appreciated your edits to the Spiritualism article, but I would like to undo a few of those in the current round. I'm happy with the new headings, but not so happy with some of the images. Spiritualism was an historical movement, with millions of ordinary people, and I picked out a few images to show that. I was very fond of the Swedish painting, since it showed a group of ordinary middle-class people, and the painter Richard Berghe managed to convey the excitement they felt. The images of Swedenborg and Mesmer leave me cold, they are just static and formal portraits, with little hint of the person inside. I like the Fox Sisters, Podmore, Price, and Houdini images, I'm willing to accept the Conan Doyle image, but I would drop the Mary Todd Lincoln and Frederick Douglass portraits. All kinds of people inveighed for or against Spiritualism, and the article should avoid simply cataloging the celebrities. If you would like to leave the Lincoln story in the text, you should add a source, since before your edit everything in the text was sourced. Douglass doesn't belong here--if you wish to add a celebrity critic, Henry James would be the obvious choice.

I also have an issue with the captions. I wrote captions to encourage the reader to look more closely at the images, and also to give some hint of why the image was important. I would like to retain the original captions on the Chicago women image and on the Swedish mesmerist image. I also liked the "practical jokes" line in the first image.

In my opinion, the article's most pressing need is to eliminate the red links. We need to make stubs for the Seybert Commission, Amy and Isaac Post, and Achsa W. Sprague.--Anthon.Eff 15:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry James (1843-1916) was too young (18-22 years old) to be of any account during Abraham Lincoln's tenure in office. Frederick Douglass was prominent and active in this period.

Well, yes. But the article isn't restricted to Abraham Lincoln's tenure in office. It's restricted to the heyday of Spiritualism. And Henry James made some famous mocking comments about Spiritualism (his brother William was much more sympathetic). Anyway, I don't think Henry James really belongs in the article either. History is not a catalog of celebrities. But I can tell that you already know this. --Anthon.Eff 23:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Emphasis on broad public interest in Spiritualism is justified. However, naming well-known individuals who were on either side of the controversy brings the movement out of the penumbra of oddity. Nihil novi 22:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe, where possible, in using short captions and headings, which intrude less into an article's text. I had moved "Spiritualism was mainly a middle- and upper-class movement, and especially popular with women" from the 1906-Chicago-photo caption into the adjacent text paragraph. Nihil novi 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you had moved it into the text. Perhaps WP needs some style guidelines on captions. My own view is that one shouldn't worry much about intruding into the text--if that's the concern, then no caption, or even no image, would be optimal. I think a good caption is one that prompts the reader to look at the image, and provides enough information that one knows why the image is relevant. --Anthon.Eff 23:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not add the information about

upper-class

movement."

I understand about encouraging readers to examine illustrations more closely. But exactly what "tricks" do you see being played in the Spiritualist-séance drawing at the top of the article? I see only a fidgety boy who seems bent on getting away from the table. Given his position between chair and table, I don't think his mother (?) could be using him to make rapping sounds with his chair legs. Nihil novi 23:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See

22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The text within the parentheses currently begins with a capital "S" and constitutes a complete sentence. Nihil novi 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaming the grammar rule doesn't make for correct usage. To wit: the parenthetical fragment in quesiton is classified as a cross-reference. According to Wikipedia house style and grammar rules and those found in Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors, cross-references do not end in periods. And according to those rules, when a "see also" is enclosed in parentheses, the "s" is lowercased. —Viriditas | Talk 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the capitalization and period location to accord with the convention you cite. Nihil novi 23:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It reads better if we just incorporate the cross-ref into the text. I'm not convinced your usage was entirely inaccurate, as the same grammar rule states there is some ambiguity. What I would like to establish is how to best use inline cross-references on Wikipedia. I'm assuming that this hasn't been addressed because most editors either use the {{

seealso}} headings or integrate the cross-refs as inline links. I think we need to settle this issue once and for all on the appropriate Manual of Style guideline page because I have run into this problem many times, but I've never altered the guidelines to address it. —Viriditas | Talk

00:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If by "inline links" you mean footnotes, that would be one way to handle it. I think, though, that there may be many ways to skin a cat, and perhaps editors should be able to use more than one. Nihil novi 00:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the spelling error on the Copernicus talk page. Guldenat 03:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Nihil novi 03:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put in for a

08:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm convinced that we're dealing with a case of genuine

protean polynumeric keeps changing his numbers, though he cannot change his illiteracy or irrationality. Perhaps the only workable solution will be to bar all anonymous editors from the "Translation" article. Nihil novi

08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely something wrong there, it's unusual that I'm totally unable to...translate...what an editor is trying to accomplish, and getting the person to at least slightly swerve from a destructive course of action...(unless they're a pure vandal), but this one was impossible to do anything with.

The 3RR report got some attention and now the article is protected from ip editing and the last ip the editor was using is also blocked - for at least a short time, anyway. Hopefully, this will cause him to give up his course of action. Yeah, I believe that one too...;) I understand the same article on the German Wikipedia was protected in the same manner from the same individual... I'll keep the article watchlisted, but let me know if it starts up again...

Dreadstar †

04:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, which I expect was decisive in bringing this runaway situation under control. I'm curious what was the subsequent history with the irrational anon., on the German Wikipedia.

The one positive aspect to this experience was how a fair number of individuals were able to become involved and work together constructively for the mutual benefit of Wikipedia and its readers and editors.

Thanks again! Nihil novi 05:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi, thanks for the update on my German talk page. The German article had to be put under protection as well, which seems to have stopped the trouble. I'm sorry I haven't been able to do anything constructive for the English article these last few weeks. --Margit Brause 07:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi, I am going to back off of Translation for now so that I am not in danger of 3RR myself, but Eurominuteman is probably not going to back off. From my point of view, his current edits are very similar to his previous ones. In what I think must be his form of compromise, he is changing the title of sections he disagrees with to "Quick and Dirty methods", and adding in a section entitled "Enhanced Methods". If you can help, that'd be cool or I'll wait until tomorrow and remove this blatant POV (also persistant linkspam). Thanks Man It's So Loud In Here 17:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Any chance of at least slowing him down by getting him blocked for 3RR? (And his continual reversals make it impossible for anyone else to edit — their contributions get expunged in the next revert.) Nihil novi 17:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You better watch out that you don't get sued for your tort. Eurominuteman 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just submitted this for 3RR, but I don't think I filled out the form properly.Man It's So Loud In Here 17:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Eurominuteman has been blocked indefinitely due to legal threats." Suitable congratulations sent to Man It's So Loud In Here. Nihil novi 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How about making some substantial contributions to the discussion? --Itskoolman 10:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Our friend is back, and constructive as ever. Man It's So Loud In Here 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So I noticed. Thanks for the link. The admin made a mistake unblocking him; he is clearly incorrigible. Nihil novi 19:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous editor with periodically mutating IP addresses, aka Eurominuteman, aka Itskoolman, was blocked from editing Wikipedia on September 20, 2007, at last bringing peace to "Translation." Reportedly he had earlier created the same chaos at the same article on the German Wikipedia, with the same ultimate result. It is remarkable how much turmoil and enervation can be wrought by one person. Nihil novi 07:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion over at Talk:Translation#Images is somewhat circular; can I entice you to join the conversation? Naturezak (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. I also enjoyed the historical images, but realized that they really are merely ornamental. And maybe the impression of "fullness" that they gave obscured the fact that the article is very much in need of good, rigorous editing and reorganization. Naturezak (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really a contributor to Translation, but I happened to call by recently just to remove what seemed to be a case of spamming. The talk page is really getting ridiculous — as you say above (or said about a year ago), this looks like a genuine case of mental illness. What's to be done? garik (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that, so long as it's technically feasible, Eurominuteman will get himself blocked again. Nice of you to drop by! I hope you stick around. Nihil novi (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you have access to that publication - that's great; the more you can reference and expand this article, the better :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, rozwaz wlaczenie poczty. Chyba, ze sprawdzasz stara...? Powinienem miec twoj dawny adres gdzies w archiwum, chyba...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

¿Why does

) 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK: Kazimierz Palace

On Kazimierz Palace, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Thanks! --PFHLai 14:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this most pleasant bit of news! Actually, I'm still in the midst of rewriting and augmenting "

Kazimierz Palace." The "Did you know?" mention will be an incentive to complete the job. Nihil novi

15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

And what that means:

23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the articles that you've started or expanded!

My German is lousy. Maybe someone else can help out both of us.

I think I understand your point, and — believe it or not — I sympathize. I've fought some battles to preserve authentic names, and I've lost to uncouth ignoramuses. But I think that, except for some universally familiar foreign names, the practical thing to do is to translate whatever can be translated, in order not to place disheartening demands on readers' energy. Nihil novi 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello.

19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why keep?

Hello Nihil novi! How are you? Why did you voted for keep? Was that because of your friendship with Nick Graves? Please reconsider your decision. Thank you. RS1900 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that in a matter of principle I would be swayed by friendship.

Partly my support for "

bigots

.

Also "nontheism" seems an apt umbrella term that covers the others — "atheism," "agnosticism" — and seems more appropriate in reference to Asian nontheistic belief systems.

Nihil novi 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you've got me right. Not only self-counscious but also with separate foreign policy, treasury, army and most other official institutions. If the federal formulation seems too confusing, we might discuss it. Con-federal maybe?--Lokyz 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding that, there are arguments to be made for both. PLC was part federation, part confederation, per definitions today. I have not seen a special word for it, but I believe it is touched a bit in some older articles I wrote on PLC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How would you suggest Lokyz phrase it in this context? Nihil novi 02:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, due to chronic vandalism, "Perfection" was semi-protected for 2 months, with possibility of 4-month extension if warranted; and "Marie Curie," without expiration date. What a relief! Nihil novi 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another link from Prometheism. Perhaps you could proofread / expand a little? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have edited "

Międzymorze" and "Prometheism

."

Hereafter, however, I shall do my best to avoid editing any article containing the words, "voivode" or "voivodeship." Nihil novi 05:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Why? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1. "Voivode" and "voivodeship" are exceptionally ugly words, neither fish nor fowl, neither Polish nor English.

2. They are unnecessary words. Nearly all countries in the world make do, in English, with "

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth idiosyncratically used "prowincya" (generally spelled with the "y") to designate a few large regions (Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; also sometimes cited is Royal Prussia) is in itself no compelling reason to call these entities "provinces," when "Regions

" would be more appropriate in English.

3. Fortunately, I don't have to be complicit in such inappropriate uses of language. Nihil novi 02:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add this link into every article which is mentioned in Prometheism. If we start adding each term ino each article mentioned in the article about the term, we will have a complete mess. The "see also" section is for things essentially expanding the current subject or for siimilar topics. We don't write fork in "see also" for beefsteak, do we? `'Míkka 06:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A more germane "see-also" here than "fork" might be "slaughterhouse." Nihil novi 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski, since you copyedited the article and work on related subjects. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... over zealous on the vandal patrolling :-) you put text in that said "Example.com" which is very common with vandals. You are on my white list now. ZacBowling^talk 21:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. Why did you add {{

) 10:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To close the blank area that now glares at the reader from beneath the lead; and to place the table of contents handily at the top of the article, analogously to the location of a book's table of contents at the head of the book.

Why did you remove {{

TOCleft}}?Nihil novi (talk

) 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To close the blank area that now glares at the reader from beneath the lead? What do you mean by that? Look, almost all biographies do not have the

) 04:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe biographies with fairly long tables of contents should have them nearer the top. Nihil novi (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit (revert) at the

) 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For copyediting Józef Piłsudski article. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. Nihil novi (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nihil novi:

Why did you revert, without explanation, these 2 edits of mine: [2] and [3]? You reverted my edits in this edit of yours: [4]. Finell (Talk) 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC) (I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

The reversions of your changes were largely collateral damage. I was principally concerned about reverting the wholesale deletion of the "Origins" section.

I must admit, though, that I do find it easier to read boxes when items end in a period. And I don't like large blank areas – perhaps due to having at one time read newspapers and associating such blanks with interventions by censors. I would most gladly see the TOC at the top left, where it once was and where it would be easiest to find.

Yours truly, Nihil novi (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nihil novi: Thank you for replying. I do not want to make a big issue of this, as there is FAR too much edit warring and incivility on Nicolaus Copernicus and its Talk page, which I refuse to be a part of (and I hope you will not allow yourself to be goaded into it). However, as editors, we all have a responsibility not to overlook intervening edits when we revert vandalism, which you dismiss as "collateral damage". Please consider how you would feel if the situation were reversed, and your work was reverted carelessly. It would have been simple for you to have copied and pasted the deleted section, rather than reverting over good faith edits. Also, when I discover that I have inadvertently done damage, or when someone calls it to my attention, I fix it myself and apologize; I do not simply dismiss it, or leave it up to another editor to fix my mistake. I believe that is a more responsible approach to collaborative editing on Wikipedia. As to the matter of periods, it is not a matter of personal preference, because it is generally regarded as wrong to end something that is not a sentence with a period; when I did it one FA candidate (now FA) article (before I knew), someone taught me that and also referred me to the MoS. Also, there were only two stray periods, so most of the entries did not have them and the inconsistency cannot be justified. As for the TOC, there is too much white space in either position, so tucking the TOC partly out of sight is not a good solution. Thanks again. Finell (Talk) 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I LIKE your TOC solution. Thanks! I was experimenting at the same time, and wound up floating it as a table immediately to the left of the infobox. By the time I saved mine, you had saved yours. Even though mine was saved after yours (I did NOT know that you were editing it; I was NOT trying to override your edit), yours evidently has priority in the parser. I like your solution better than mine. Thanks again! Finell (Talk) 06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it meets with your approval. I think a TOC positioned near the top of the page functions more nearly like a book's TOC, which appears at the opening of the book rather than after the foreword.

I don't know whether you have a large share of authorship in the final three major sections of the article, but as they now read, I would favor dropping "Copernicanism" and "Nationality," and transferring the contents of the "Quotes" section into the Nicolaus Copernicus Wikiquote, where a number of the quotes, or portions of them, already appear. Do you have any opinions? Nihil novi (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have NO authorship in the article (I would be embarrassed if I had), only some editing and some unsuccessful efforts to stop the edit warring and vitriol over nationality. By Wikipedia's standards, this article is disappointingly poor for such an important subject. My reaction when I first looked at the article (doing research, not to edit) is here: Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus#Shame on you. (Oh, I now see that you read my post and agreed.) I agree with both of your proposals, in principle. One of the projects on my to-do list is to lay out a plan to improve the article (hopefully to FA someday, but probably not anytime soon) and propose it on the talk page. Eliminating the quotations gallery (possibly working some of them into appropriate sections of the article) and very significantly reducing (but not eliminating) "Nationality" are high on my list. However, the LONG history of nationality warring (you really should study the talk page and its archives and the subpage on nationality and its archives) must be considered if one is to have any hope of making constructive improvements. Some of the article's problems derive from the nationality warring. These include adding historical accounts to support various pro-German or pro-Polish nationalist views (but which that do not belong in an article on Copernicus), some of the quotes (inserted for the same purpose), and the "Nationality" section. Therefore, I think that the agenda should be, first, to make improvements that do not relate to nationality (that leaves a lot of room), and only address nationality-related problems when the rest of the article is in better shape. By the way, realize that your background may make your edits suspect in the eyes of some partisans, especially on nationality-related issues. Finell (Talk) 16:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this edit : I hope you didn't take my comment too seriously? I was grateful for your (and Folantin's) support, but it didn't help in the end, given Honorkell's refusal to be convinced by my logic. I fully support your move to get random cultural references removed. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 07:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had overlooked my comments, I could hardly blame you, given my penchant for

laconism. For my part, I take encouragement from encounters with voices of reason such as yours. Nihil novi (talk

) 08:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobilitation vs. Ennoblement

Perhaps you could comment at

21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Perfection" protection

On December 7, I requested a further 4 months' semi-protection for "Perfection," which since its de-protection on November 30 had undergone 18 changes (vandalizations and their reversals) with no net change in text. Semi-protection was granted by User:Piotrus. "Expires 00:00, December 15, 2008." Nihil novi 05:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi! How are you? Are you a Pole? Many of your edits are related to

) 13:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. I do edit on Polish subjects, among others.

The details of my life are not particularly notable. As to my views on age-old or current concerns of humanity, I usually prefer to minimize openings for needless controversy in this public forum.

However, I do have some biases:

I think that, in general, knowledge is preferable to ignorance—if only because knowledge can make our lives more efficient.

I favor clarity, precision and concision of expression—it is rude to make excessive demands on readers' energy.

I think that the chances of our species' destruction from a variety of causes in the short and medium terms is substantial, and in the long term—virtually certain; and I think that, for the duration, our species should try to make life as bearable as possible for all its members, if only so that the less privileged will be less likely to develop destructive resentments against the more privileged.

It's nice to make your acquaintance. Welcome to Wikipedia! Dasvidania—I hope our paths continue crossing. Nihil novi (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. I am not asking about the details of your life. I just fell that you should mention few things about you on your user page. You are a good guy. And, thank you for the reply. I also hope our paths continue crossing. Let's hope we will work together in the future. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Nihil novi. I hope you are well. I would like to request a clarification regarding this, as you did not produce it during your automated revert. I intuit that you may think that following words are my interpretation It was highly significant that Piłsudski could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation, but a Lithuanian of Polish culture. It is not, these are similar words taken from

) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been addressed in the text of the article, by Piotrus. Nihil novi (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's going to be a bit of work to get a new translation article in order, and port that material from Formal and Dynamic Equivalence to other relevant pages. Any thoughts before I begin to plot the course? Naturezak (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You've already done a lot to make the "Translation" article better organized and more rigorous.

I think the essence of the "

Dynamic and formal equivalence" article is now summarized reasonably well in the "Translation" article's "Equivalence

" section.

The "Fidelity vs. transparency" and "Literary translation" sections might bear looking at again for content and clarity.

There is a "Bible translations" article which might be a natural venue for Bible-translation material from "Dynamic and formal equivalence."

I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to separate out the "Translation" article's "Translating for legal equivalence" and "Accreditation of translators" sections as separate articles. (If South Africa and Mexico, then why not Mozambique and Panama, and so on?)

Perhaps, also, "Translation"'s "Religious texts" section should become a separate article or series of articles, more adequately covering more of the world's major bodies of religious writings? Nihil novi (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Literary translation" section is top-heavy with discussion of "sung texts" (over half the volume of that section). Nihil novi (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put in a subsection on the general history of literary translation. Nihil novi (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi can you please provide a more meaningful edit summary other than "Edit." as you did on this edit. That you did edit the article is self-evident - even putting no edit summary in reports that you edited the article - but if you can put something in which identifies what or how you edited the article that would be great.

Garrie 23:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I sometimes feel too rushed for time to analyze and detail what I've done; and sometimes my edits are so massive, there's no way to detail them. I'll try to do better. Nihil novi (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. Why did you reverted my edits? Please see the biographies of most people. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I understand what you are trying to do. However, if you want to promote the biography of Nicolaus Copernicus to GA status, certain changes have to be made. And, please assume good faith. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding birth and death dates in the lead, I had understood that you were highlighting only the respective years, which are not highlighted on Wikipedia. If you wanted the complete dates there, that's all right. Nihil novi (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my putting the table of contents back into the upper left corner of the article, I think that prevents the article from looking as if it had been worked on by a censor who left a huge blank space on the page. Nihil novi (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

By the by, why did you move the "Translation" table of contents to the bottom of that article? Nihil novi (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a minor error that happens sometime. Thanks for correcting that error. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I pressed 'Enter' at a wrong time! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

and friends, in the midsts of Wigilia, wish you to enjoy this Christmas Eve

!

) 12:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoken like a bureaucrat. "Polish Biographical Dictionary" is not accurate. It is the name of The Polish Biographical Dictionary, an English-language publication. Nihil novi (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just how do you envision citing this reference work as a source in an article? Under its real, Polish name—or under this contrived English version? Nihil novi (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's time for a new RM to see if we can reach a consensus on move this time. When we cite PWN, we don't translate it as Encyclopedia of Polish Science Publishers, nor is WIEM Encyklopedia a KNOW Encyklopedia, and Brockhause is not Brickhouse :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Nor is

Osservatore Romano, The Roman Observer. Nihil novi (talk

) 20:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! I read the biography of Nicolaus Copernicus and there are some useful information about him. Thanks for your contributions to the biography of Copernicus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet researched M-morze properly; it is still on my 'to do' list; hence I can speak with much confidence about the naming variants :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you put the first image on the Chopin article on the LEFT side of the screen??? All of the Wikipedia pages in Polish and English (and French) have the FIRST image on the RIGHT side of the screen? Charvex (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the TOC to top-left; the

Chopin photo is now at top-right. Everyone should now be happy. Nihil novi (talk

) 09:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BABEL

This useful template will tell other users what languages you can speak. You can also add an infobox from

20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll think about it. Nihil novi (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to edit and expand this article one day, considering it served as an inspiration to your Wikipedia nickname :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also revised the corresponding Wikiquote entry. Nihil novi (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. Happy New Year! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Spiritualism might be ready for nomination to GA status. Since your work on the headings and adding new images, very little has been added, so it seems that it has hit a period of equilibrium. What do you think--should I nominate it? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. "Spiritualism" is a fine article. Nihil novi (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What a mess! I've requested the assistance of an administrator (User_talk:Dekimasu#Spiritualism), who specializes in move-related issues. Unfortunately, he is on vacation, so this might take some time. If you can think of some other way to handle this, let me know, via email (there's a link on my user page) or here. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

While there are similarities between the "Spiritualism" (capital "S") that began in 1848 in New York State with the Fox sisters and spread to Europe and elsewhere, and earlier "spiritualisms" (small "s") in various parts of the world, it appears to have become established usage to reserve the capital-S term "Spiritualism" for the former. It would save confusion if other entities were designated by another term, such as "animism," which appears to describe them quite well.

Encyclopaedia Britannica

, 2003, vol. 11, p. 104, states:

"Although spiritualistic practices seem to be widespread, they were virtually unknown in modern civilized society until March 1848, when odd happenings were reported at the house of a farmer named Fox in a small town in New York state.... The practice of having sittings for communication with spirits spread rapidly from that time."

On a technical note, I wish the "Spiritualistic topics" template had not been stuck into the article in the disruptive way that it has been.

If you wish to use email, I have an account linked to my user page. You might alert me here, though, since I don't necessarily check that account daily.

I suppose we could reorganize everything on our own (as our colleagues have), restoring the article's original title and changing various other article and template titles. But perhaps we should first settle definitively the question of nomenclature. Nihil novi (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The strangest thing about the template is that

policy says

that we have to get an administrator to take care of it. The administrator I asked seems very fair, and I think he will settle this in a way good for WP, even if we don't get the title back.

Personally, I would like to keep the title of Spiritualism. It says something that English WP got to over 2 million articles, and not until now did anyone think that we needed a distinction between spiritualism and Spiritualism. The name Spiritualism should go to the most common use of the word. Anyway, it will be amusing to see what Lucy makes of her article. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the duplicative templates. Our colleague has indeed made a hash of it. Nihil novi (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am here to talk guys, so please don't keep saying I wont listen. The dispute appears to be exactly what Nihil states above Capital 'S' versus lower case 's'. If you go through the citations I am providing, I think you will find that it is commonly used in both manners and "Modern Spirituals" as the proper title for the movement. Thanks--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, I did revert your mass deletion. I do think it was a bad faith reversion. I also corrected a statistic.

Please be reasonable and discuss such major deletions of another work.

I am trying to understand the strength of feelings you have over this topic. The citations clearly refer to and mention a much broader use of the world. Even Athon's. You appear to agree above. So, please, don't be unnecessarily provocative until we can resolve matters reasonably. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class
		I, Tymek (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC), am awarding you this Barnstar, as a gesture of appreciation. Your good work on Poland-related articles is highly regarded. Keep it up!

Thank you for copyediting and expanding the article. Could you add citations for the new facts you've added? Particularly for the considerations about the museum in Belweder; I'd like to read more about it. Aren't there plans for a museum in his mansion in Sulejówek? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have found the information about a planned museum, in the "Belweder" article. (I had thought of this idea independently, myself.)

Piłsudski's daughter Wanda, who died in 2001, wanted to turn the family cottage (it is certainly not a "mansion") at Sulejówek into a museum dedicated to her father. It's a good idea; but the Belweder is a better one, should it be necessary to make a choice. (I recently started an article about Wanda, based on the Polish Wikipedia article; her sister Jadwiga probably should also get an English-Wikipedia article.)

I know about the Piłsudski coin "z autopsji"—I have one; if I find it, I might make a photo.

Any other questions I might answer? Nihil novi (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't doubt the authenticity of the information, in a FA-class article we should have inline cites. Could you try finding and adding refs for that?

Looking forward to Jadwiga article. And the coin, too - around summer I should be able to upload stamps/postcards/postmarks from '35.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. I am a little confused about the nationality of Nicolaus Copernicus. I think the following statement should be verified:

"Indeed, he might have considered himself to be both at the same time."

In many books Copernicus is regarded as Polish. However, at that time, there was no Polish State. Can you explain me why Copernicus is commonly regarded as Polish? I am not from Poland. However, I am interested in Poland and Polish history. You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

) 08:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

) 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Józef Piłsudski Featured Article

Couldn't have done it without help from you and other good editors! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

) 18:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed that you engaged with Anthon.Eff is edit-warring over the infobox and voting for its deletion. Any good reason for this you care to discuss?

Looking over the history, it appears to related to the page move which I dont understand as we appear to be agreeing on the different uses of the word.

I replaced it, let's discuss on the topic page. Please don't be drawn into editing-warring on Anthon's behalf.

Thanks --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/4.79.230.76 might have removed the sizing on the images and TOC tab?

I do not know ... is it a Wiki thing? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. Congratulations! Today I noticed that Józef Piłsudski has achieved FA status. You made significant contributions to the article. Well done. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It was good to be able to help Piotrus. He did a fantastic job with this important subject. Good to hear from you! Nihil novi (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about "limited attention span" was rude and sophomoric. For my part, I actually have read a lot about Piłsudski and find him a fascinating personality. But in the grand scheme of things, Piłsudski is not a major historical figure, globally speaking.

BTW, I also have lived in Poland, however briefly, and Lithuania.

Sca (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Article size" speaks specifically of "attention spans." I don't see why my mention of it should be seen as "rude" or "sophomoric." Nihil novi (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. In the future don't hesitate to nominate yourself, it's common practice - and I have so many things to do... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see a comment at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_January_24. I have also nominated Kasztanka above, see if you like the hook (it could use an inline reference, too).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On 28 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish Museum, Rapperswil, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can find and cite an old version of the page in the Internet Archive? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile. Thanks. I didn't know about the Internet Archive. Nihil novi (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated. Is the horse notable or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Lucy has been blocked indefinitely (User_talk:Lucyintheskywithdada#Blocked). Don't forget to respond to the survey at Talk:Spiritualism#Requested_move. Thanks! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, she'll be back (User_talk:Lucyintheskywithdada#Blocked). But now that she's on everyone's radar, she will need to work with us instead of trying to have her own way. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. I have added Infobox Writer to the biography of Prus. You can add some information. And, I think we can promote the article to GA status. Can you please find some more information about Prus? You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions! Should I nominate the article for Good Article status? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's ready for that.

As to adding more biographical material to the article, while there have been a number of full-length biographies, it has been said that his real biography is to be found in his writings rather than in the facts and dates in his life; so it's hard to know what more to put in without going into minute discussions of his stories and newspaper columns. Maybe the GA process would stimulate further specific research.

Thanks for your interest in Bolesław Prus. Nihil novi (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil. I have created Template:Bolesław Prus. What do you think of the template? You can also added few stuff. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The template is quite impressive. How did you learn to make them?

The Most General Life Ideals is, however, a nonfiction work of pragmatic philosophy, so I've set up a third section for "Nonfiction."

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of Prus. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for, or questions concerning, the article. Nihil novi (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also nominated the biography of Prus for Good Article status. I think you should also inform Piotrus about this. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the nomination and the suggestion. Nihil novi (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I asked you to inform Piotrus about this because he is from Poland. I made the template by studying other similar templates. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil. I didn't know that in Poland, the movement was called simply "Positivism," not "Polish Positivism". However, the term Positivism is generally associated with Sociology. It will be confusing to non-Polish person like me. And, I didn't know that in Polish, women's names take feminine endings. Few things in the biography will be confusing to non-Polish people. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in the editing. Your questions and comments also help me focus my own editing.

Polish "Positivism" took its name and some of its inspiration from the broader Positivist philosophical movement (which, of course, included the sociological variant). The link to "

Positivism in Poland" will provide readers some background. Nihil novi (talk

) 07:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Please see the biography. The biography is fine. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Survival of the fittest is a phrase. It was a minor error. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Nihil. I think we should discuss about Prus on the talk page of Bolesław Prus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. You citied the references and notes in an incorrect manner! You should have used the citation template. See: Template:Citation. I also believe that the biography of Prus can achieve FA status. We have to correct the references and notes. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of Prus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And, I must say, your contributions to the biography of Prus are quite outstanding. The biography of Prus on the English Wikipedia is probably the best biography of Prus on the Internet! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bolesław Prus," as it now stands, owes a lot to you. You have really pushed it along in the last few days. A writing endeavor benefits from benevolent interest and constructive criticism, and I have rarely encountered so much of either on the Wikipedia. Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you deserve 95% credit. I am not from Poland. However, I am interested in Poland and Polish culture. I know about Prus because of the novel Pharaoh. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Have you read it in translation? Or read about it? Nihil novi (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have read about it! I also know about the film based on the novel Pharaoh. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled about the "retrieved [date]" information-items for The Polish Review sources, in the new citation templates. Are these articles actually available on-line? Or are these simply errors? Nihil novi (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, when you use citation templates, you get these dates. I have also added volume. I am a little confused about the following:

• The experience may have caused his subsequent lifelong agoraphobia: Stanisław Fita, ed., Wspomnienia o Bolesławie Prusie, p. 113, note 7.

What is Wspomnienia o Bolesławie Prusie? Book, journal, or article? And, What do you mean by "note 7"? What was the volume? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Wspomnienia... is a one-volume book, edited by Stanisław Fita. On p. 113 of this book is a note, I think at the end of its chapter, which provides some additional information, much as a

footnote might. The complete bibliographical information about this book is in the References section, and includes translation of the book's title: Reminiscences about Bolesław Prus. Nihil novi (talk

) 08:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil. You added the following:

Prus was not alone in advocating the development of science and technology. It was part of the spirit of the times. The great Polish mathematician Kazimierz Kuratowski writes that in the period when Poland was under complete foreign rule (1795–1918) "It was a common belief that the cultivation of science and the growth of its potential would somehow guarantee the maintenance of the [Polish] nation." (A Half Century of Polish Mathematics: Remembrances and Reflections, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1980, p. 2.)

Did you modify the text? We have to modify the text to avoid copy-right violation. What is the name of the author? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation. The only text directly quoted is what appears in quotes (which comes from Kuratowski's book, A Half Century of Polish Mathematics), and we are certainly allowed to quote that much directly. Nihil novi (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil. According to the article "Eventually released on account of his youth, in 1866 he completed secondary school and enrolled in science at the University of Warsaw." However, according to this website, Prus graduated in 1868. Which one is correct? If the information provided by the website is false, I will remove it from the section External Links. Did Prus studied Physics and Mathematics at Warsaw? And, do you have books that are citied on the article? The article is nominated for the GA status. Many users are watching the biography. We have to get all correct information. And, are Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy and Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej publishing companies? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The website is wrong. He graduated from secondary school, and enrolled at Warsaw University, in 1866. The dates when he attended the University (1866–68) are correctly stated on the

Kazimierz Palace plaque near the bottom of our Wikipedia article. He studied in what in English might be termed the Department of Natural Sciences—or, more simply, he studied "science." I have access to all the major sources about Prus. The two institutions you quote are indeed publishing firms. Nihil novi (talk

) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Polish Wikipedia (here) likewise states that Prus graduated from secondary school in 1866. Nihil novi (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are the two institutions that I quoted above are located in Warsaw? I have also send you an e-mail. I think the artile Bolesław Prus can achieve FA status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The two publishers are in Warsaw. Nihil novi (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I think you should see the article. The article is very good and it is probably the best biography of Prus on the Internet. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil. ISBN number for some books are missing. I think you can help. Please see the the talk page of Bolesław Prus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to check. Some of the books are probably too old to have had an ISBN. Nihil novi (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I, Got Classical? 05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: You might want to add a few of these awards onto your userpage...it might spruce it up a bit. :) --

05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I love it! Thank you!

Another reward of working on "Frédéric Chopin" has been the chance to hear the elegant level of discourse conducted by the Wikipedia's music editors! Thank you again! Nihil novi (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I heartily approve this award, by the way. Thank you for your work on the article, Antandrus (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your discussions have been a convivial symposium, and a source of encouragement amid the sometimes Sisyphean labors on the Wikipedia.

After I get past some urgent commitments, I'll review my sources for any further material of use for "Frédéric Chopin."

A question: Did Chopin in fact obtain French citizenship? (If he did, it wouldn't be surprising, given his views on Russian governance in Poland.) Nihil novi (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings again: I don't know for certain--I think he did become a citizen. The specific event is not mentioned in the Grove article. This sentence applies to 1834-5: "But despite the official amnesties he was nervous of renewing his Russian passport and placing himself at the mercy of Russian officials in Warsaw." (Kornel Michałowski,

New Grove) Since I think it also would have been unsurprising for him to have become a French citizen, I did not revert the latest visitation by you-know-who. Doing just a bit of forbidden "original research", I'd say he got the French passport in order to be able to return to Poland, at some future time, at minimal risk. Unfortunately he never had the chance. Cheers! Antandrus (talk)

14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Szulc passage I quoted on the talk page solves this: "Because Chopin’s Russian passport restriction allowed him to remain in Paris only ‘in passage’ to London, Paer wrote the French authorities requesting a more permanent status for 'this young man…who is a Pole deported from Warsaw as a result of the revolution [and] who was in Vienna where the press and the society elite received him with great consideration. Chopin is an educated man’.

“Chopin of course had not been deported and was not a political refugee, but the French granted him permission to stay in Paris indefinitely ‘to be able to perfect his art’. Four years later, Fryderyk became a French citizen and a French passport was issued to him on August 1, 1835. He is not known to have discussed his decision to change citizenship with anyone, not even his father. It is unclear whether he did it to avoid renewing his Russian passport at the Russian embassy for patriotic reasons or simply as a matter of general convenience”. (Tad Szulc “Chopin in Paris” p.69 )

Basically, Chopin was left in limbo as far as passports were concerned when he decided not to return to Poland in 1831, but later on he needed one to travel abroad (to London). This meant obtaining either a Russian passport or a French one (since obviously a Polish passport was unavailable in that era) and he preferred the latter.

So it was merely a matter of making travel easier rather than a deep sense of his own Frenchness that made Chopin adopt French citizenship. Of course, our friend has selectively truncated the Szulc quotation I provided to suggest otherwise. "[Chopin] became a French citizen like his father" implies he was following in his father's footsteps, whereas everything we know about Chopin's father shows he had turned his back on France completely and wanted his children to be brought up thoroughly Polish. Our persistent editor friend is trying to reverse the process and force Fryderyk Chopin to be French against his father's wishes! Cheers. --

Folantin (talk

) 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very enlightening. We may want, at some time in the future, to adjust the pertinent sentence in the article's lead to make it less misleading—and possibly cite Michałowski and/or Szulc in extenso. Nihil novi (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. Thank you for the award. And, I think you are a great editor. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to be an ass about this ... but that was pure vandalism. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. I noticed that you created the article Apollo Korzeniowski. Great job. The biography is very good. I have nominated it for DYK. I think the name of the book is Apollo Korzeniowski. Correct? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. It is an article about

Polski słownik biograficzny (Polish Biographical Dictionary). Nihil novi (talk

) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. I have created a new list called

) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm surprised there hasn't been such a dedicated list until now. To be sure, there is a List of Polish-language authors, but it is an indiscriminate listing that disregards the authors' genres of work.

Where do you find the time and energy to do so much work on the Wikipedia? Nihil novi (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I edit Wikipedia whenever I have time. Thanks for appreciating my work. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On 21 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Apollo Korzeniowski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. Thank you for your note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar, I will cut it out and wear it when I go somewhere. Thanks again Tymek (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you didn't like my recent edit concerning

) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki-Lithuanians themselves number "Česlovas Milošas" with the "Lenkai" (Poles). I would happily concede Miłosz, Nobel Prize and all, to Lithuania, but honesty forbids it. He was born into a Polish family, spoke and wrote Polish, did not know Lithuanian, completed his university education in what was then a Polish city (Vilnius), and conducted his subsequent career as a Pole, in Polish. Calling him "Lithuanian-born," without proper qualification, will suggest that he was Lithuanian. Nihil novi (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to impune your honesty, only your knowledge. When I personally met Milosz, I made it a point to converse with him in Lithuanian, it delighted me that he could, and we both got a chuckle out of it. Since that is for your information only, rather than an attempt to instill

Milosz article. Check out NY Times Obituary from Aug 15, 2004 (fourth one down). The part of your argument regarding Milosz's linguistic ability, (did not know Lithuanian) doesn't wash, he spoke Lithuanian and honesty forbids denying it. I too would happily concede that point to you if it were true. But it's not so. Dr. Dan (talk

) 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what reference you wish me to see, or where to find it. As for knowledge of Lithuanian, he specifically denied it to me. Nihil novi (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I know we disagree on a variety of things, but I have never questioned your ability to grasp things. In fact, I consider you to be one of the more intelligent Polish contributors to the project. Therefore even though your above post puzzles me, I will

Milosz article, then scroll down to Obituaries, then scroll down to the fourth one (NY Times), click on it and you will get the information. Best Dr. Dan (talk

) 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC).

Nihil, Lithuanian can mean Polish from Lithuanian region. I will gladly provide reference.--Molobo (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean, Lithuanian language or Lithuanian person? References might be of interest. Thank you.

I think Dan may be referring to a conversation between himself and Miłosz in broken (?) Lithuanian. For my part, I'm capable of asking about a restaurant in a number of languages that I don't speak at all.

In any case, Miłosz was quite clear and straightfoward, when I asked him whether he knew Lithuanian. The answer was, "Nie" (in Polish). Nihil novi (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one that does [6] link for you then. And Molobo, thank you for joining in, I'm sure everyone will appreciate your interpretation of what the meaning of the Lithuanian language "is". Hopefully it will not be too reminiscent of what the meaning of is depends on. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Which goes to show that publications like The Economist can be mistaken.

I propose that we adjourn and reconvene at a more public venue where others may more readily participate, and which is more indulgent of windiness. Nihil novi (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what Milosz said in Stockholm, receiving the Nobel prize: "I chociaz moja rodzina juz od XVI wieku poslugiwala sie jezykiem polskim (...) wskutek czego jestem polskim, nie litewskim poeta, krajobrazy i byc moze duchy Litwy nigdy mnie nie opuscily". Tymek (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"And while my family has been using the Polish language since the 16th century [...] which is why I am a Polish and not a Lithuanian poet, the landscapes and perhaps the spirits of Lithuania have never left me." Thank you. That is interesting. Nihil novi (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we adjourning here and reconvening at a more public venue, or are we going to continue indulge in windiness here? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am curious to what exactly this unsourced anecdote brings to the article? Ostap 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You can edit this article, replacing the link by your text.Xx236 (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

When you select Tadeusz Bobrowski you see a link on the top of the Conrad article to Tadeusz Bobrowski one.Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I've started the Bobrowski article. Nihil novi (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Completed the article. Nihil novi (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class
		I award Nihil novi "The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class" for his outstanding contributions to Poland-related articles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Nihil novi by Masterpiece2000 (talk) on 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. You have received "The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class" award twice. This shows that your contributions are quite outstanding. I also think that you should mention few things about you or your contributions on your user page. You have made significant contributions for Wikipedia. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your favorable notice of my efforts. If I do not place decorations on my user page, it is partly from concern about attracting the unfavorable notice of individuals who do not share your benevolent attitude.

I may have to cut back for a time on my wiki-work. A full-time day job and a substantial night-time wiki-job leave little time for sleep or the obligations of ordinary life.

I would like to recognize your distinguished work. Which country's decoration may I nominate you for? Nihil novi (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have already given me an award. That's good enough. Thank you for appreciating my award. I may also have to cut back for a time on my wiki-work. We all have to deal with our 'real life'. And, you are a great wiki-friend. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And, one more thing: We have to make sure that the biography of Bolesław Prus achieve the Featured Article status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"

T.E. Lawrence

," who is a Featured-Article-worthy subject.

Your friend, Nihil novi (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Great news! You deserve most credit for this. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In reverting the Page Move I made for

to be "clumsy English", you neglect to take into account:

• The "triple" is an incorrect translation of the Polish"

Why?

• I cited a published source of a historical account of the WWII period, a book that has been reprinted several times over the decades, whose title in English translation is Three Crosses Square. Please note that professional translators in our "Age of Information" will commonly use an existing translation (if it is correct) to sustain coherence in information management and retrieval.

"If it is correct..." It isn't correct.

• You offer no substantiation nor credentials for your authorative judgment of proper vs. so-called "clumsy" English, and suggest your judgment is superior to mine.

I believe that in this case my judgment is superior to yours.

Nihil novi (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kindly relate to the above remarks ASAP so we can proceed with appropriate editing. -- Thank you, Deborahjay (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have substantive information to add to this article, don't let me stop you. Nihil novi (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. The article

) 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added some items to the List. I'm not sure we need to include all the fiction he ever wrote. Some of it is rather obscure now, and in some cases (not having seen the pieces) I'm not even sure how to render the title in English.

I wonder whether the title of the List should be modified to "List of fiction by Bolesław Prus"? Most of what Prus wrote was nonfiction newspaper columns, a number of which remain interesting. Over his 40 years as a journalist, he must have written some 2,000 of these "Weekly Chronicles." I see no possibility or need to include them all; and I'm not sure there's much point to including any.

As to English translations: I believe they are largely covered in "Bolesław Prus" and "Pharaoh," and I see little point to repeating that information in this List.

Thanks again for setting up this list, which unburdens the main article and allows us to provide more information about Prus's literary work.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need to include all the fiction he ever wrote. And, if they don't have English title, just Polish name will do. According to you, Prus must have written some 2,000 of these "Weekly Chronicles." Some notable "Weekly Chronicles" can be included. You can also include some obscure stuff. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. I created a new section 'Notable works by Bolesław Prus' and redirected the list 'List of works by Bolesław Prus' to 'Notable works by Bolesław Prus'. You can add information in that section. The biography is ready for the FA status. What's your views? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On 13 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tadeusz Bobrowski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stanisław Jackowski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--PFHLai (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ziemia Obiecana -> redirect to The Promised Land (about a 1974 movie). I've just created a stub on The Promised Land (novel) - but I think the novel should be under the generic title, not the movie. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The novel is primary; the film is derivative of the novel. Theoretically, there could be any number of other, subsequent derivative works (stage plays, more movies, visual-arts representations, etc.); but there will, in all likelihood, never be found more than the one original novel, and the deceased author will never produce more new versions. Nihil novi (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. Thank you for your contributions to the article

) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your questions and suggestions prompted me to look up further information. I think the result is an improvement. Nihil novi (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the {{

) 01:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't need to be deleted, but expanded. I've added material. Nihil novi (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is unlikely to ever lead to a good article but feel free to prove me wrong. My principle concern is the indiscriminate nature of the list. I have explained my objections in more detail on the talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On 22 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fading Voices, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read through and see if there is anything to improve in

07:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Polish culture during World War II"—I've completed editing this.

"

Armia Krajowa"—I'll look at this when time permits. Nihil novi (talk

) 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Palladino and others

Stories grow. Please list a PRIMARY source for the Palladino levitation story. The date may have some importance. Primary source :After Death-What by Cesare Lombroso, the father of Phrenology, Experiments with Palladino, 1908 p 49-50, tells us the levitation took place in the dark. The only proofs seem to be that Palladino says she will rise in her chair and land on the table, her hands were held and the feeling of hands on the top of the investigators' heads. Nothing is seen. Look at Uri Geller and my boy Ingo Swann. They did their tricks in the light before modern day scientists and the CIA. The belief in magick and superstition is alive and well. It always will be too! That is why the critical investigations of magicians who specialize in deception and fraud is important. Just as it was when people were being executed for being witches. Drop by and say hello.Kazuba (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I hold no brief for undocumented claims. Nihil novi (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On 29 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Delfina Potocka, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Wizardman 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

On 4 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ambroży Mieroszewski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

On 4 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wacław Szymanowski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I hope you are doing well. Nihil, the article

is still not ready for the FA status. The lead of the article should be expanded and there are other flaws. We have to correct those flaws.

And, nice to know that you have contributed to so many DYKs. You have also contributed to one FA article, one GA and received three awards. I think you should mention that on your user page. It will help other users to know your great contributions for Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I would welcome suggestions to improve "Bolesław Prus."

I don't know that I'll be decorating my user page. I don't expect to be running for a Wikipedia political office. In any case, I like a simple user page, and an empty one is as simple as it gets.

Please let me know if I can help bring "Richard Dawkins" to "Featured Article" recognition. The article deserved it long ago. You might also ask himself to help. Nihil novi (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Yes, your help will be required. Please follow the article and help whenever you can. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you reading through the

18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's a season for GAC: check

Forced labor in Germany during World War II (GAC reviewer's comments on talk).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Few things...

Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I hope you are doing well. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Your contributions and comments will be helpful. And, after this FA, I will focus on Bolesław Prus. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I was at a party and a Polish girl I was talking to was adamant that Poland wasn't in "Eastern Europe". No, no, no ... it was in "Western Europe" she insisted (she didn't say "Central Europe"). She told me Poland was Catholic and had a great monarchy a few centuries ago as if this somehow proved it was in Western Europe. Anyways, I asked "What then is in Eastern Europe ... just Russia?" She said "No, Russia is in Asia", leaving me wondering exactly where Eastern Europe was. I mean, is eastern Europe supposed to be confined inside a line thinner than a pencil a little west of

) 00:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)elusive

"Central Europe" is a reasonably well-defined concept, even if some of its outer edges — as with any concept — may be a little ragged. Poland is definitely part of Central Europe. The vague blatherings of a semi-educated girl at a party do not change that. And we are long past the bipolar Cold War. Nihil novi (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So is Eastern Europe. I'm not denying it is sometimes classified as being in Central Europe, that's true, but more often it is classified as being in "Eastern Europe". This is determined by usage alone, as there is no other criteria. It's simply meaningless to claim this view is wrong, because it's from the very usage you are selectively rejecting that any such classification has to emerge. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The wise way to address the controversial claims of our Polish partners to Stefan Banach is to acknowledge his European Ukrainian origins and background. Europe is our common home and Poles should have their say too. Let's stop arguing. As a citizen of Ukrainian Lviv, Banach is both Ukrainian and European. Let's call him a European mathematician. I hope Poles would agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nihil Novi! Congrats on the

21:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the comma, instead. Putting in a "he" may make the sentence sound pedestrian. Sometimes a text may read better with a comma, and without a "he." Nihil novi (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I have created Category:WikiProject Poland participants. You can add the category on your user page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice category, and I imagine will be useful. It's a generous initiative on Masterpiece's part. I probably should add myself to it.

Why do I hesitate (to overtly affiliate myself with anything, for that matter)? Nihil novi (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added myself to the category, thereby creating its letter "N." Nihil novi (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil. I have a bad news. The FA nomination of Richard Dawkins has failed. I would like to thank you for your contributions and your support. Nihil, you are an experienced editor. Do you have any suggestions for the article? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I couldn't help address the critics' concerns since I haven't read Dawkins' writings. One of your colleagues apparently has. Maybe he could help track down whatever it is that was missing. Overall, I've thought for weeks that the article was well-structured, well-written, well-documented. Sometimes the problem is not so much with the article as with the critics, who nit-pick it to death. I think this article has every chance of receiving FA status, with just a little help from colleagues and critics. Nihil novi (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comment. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Your views here would be much appreciated. Thanks.

) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising and censoring Talk:Stefan_Banach and Stefan_Banach.

This discussion page contains discussions of Stefan Banach, including his important contributions to Ukrainian mathematics and his work in Lviv, Ukraine.

You initiated a new discussion topic at Talk:Stefan_Banach by suggesting to delete the section from an article on Stefan_Banach describing his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics. Immediately after initiating this discussion, you moved the entire body of the earlier discussions into the archive. You repeated this censorship attempt several times, after the discussion was restored.

The section Contributions to Ukrainian mathematics contains important facts on Banach's contributions to Ukrainian science and Ukrainian mathematics in particular. There are substantial plans to continue the work on expanding this particular section, as well as other sections of the Stefan_Banach article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

During your most recent censorship attempt, along with archiving the previous discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach, you deleted the section from this discussion that documented and condemned your censorship.

Please cease your censorship attempts and desist from them in the future. Respect the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The earlier discussions were not archived by me but by another editor. They were brought back from the archive unnecessarily by you, who then proceeded to move my latest entries without my consent.

Please desist from harassing me and from attempting ill-advised changes in the "Stefan Banach" article. Nihil novi (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions stated on Talk:Stefan_Banach are well-preserved and they were never censored. You created the new section on Banach's contributions to Ukrainian mathematics. Such section already exist in the previous discussion. Your comments were moved into this existing section and the discussion was de-archived.

During your most recent censorship attempt, along with archiving the previous discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach, you deleted the section from this discussion that documented and condemned your censorship. Please stop doing it.

The entire discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach is very informative and it is not a bulky page at all. There is no way to justify hiding this discussion into the archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

98.210.14.5, please stop attacking Nihil novi and pushing your POV. I don't think Nihil novi is trying to censor anything. If you don't stop your disruptive editing, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in contributing to this new article I created. I plan to expand it soon; for now I concentrated on collecting sources for expansion (hence the long list of elinks and books and such).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you may want to add your name to

14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've signed in. Nihil novi (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please write a plot summary for this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen the entire film and have therefore passed the request on at

Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. Nihil novi (talk

) 05:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tadeusz Puszczyński

Hi, thanks for creating the article about Tadeusz Puszczyński. I was going to do it, but I have been busy recently. Anyway, I will try to expand it. BTW I have noticed your work on the Wawelberg Group, good job! I see you are interested in this unknown part of Polish military history. Tymek (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a stub on

nom de guerre

from?

I very much appreciate your work on this long-neglected period in Polish military and intelligence history.

Was Ryszard Puszczyński, who worked at the Polish General Staff's Section II before World War II, a relative of Tadeusz Puszczyński? Nihil novi (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no idea where Puszczynski's nom de guerre came from. I lived in Opole for a few years, when I come back there, I will check at the Instytut Slaski library, if I have some time to do so. As for the two Puszczynskis - again, no idea. Greets. Tymek (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil! Your new article Tadeusz Puszczyński is very good! Great job! Can you add some more references in the article? It might qualify for DYK. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It was User:Tymek who added the new information, to what I had adapted from his article on the "Wawelberg Group." He could probably give you more sources. Nihil novi (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nihil, I am confused about the ISBN of the book The Order of the Virtuti Militari and Its Cavaliers. Do you have the book? Can you please check the ISBN? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nihil, it is an important article about Polish military and intelligence history. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ISBN 0-934-527-00-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. Nihil novi (talk

) 06:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Well, actually, there is no need to add quotation marks or wikicode brackets of any kind! See: Wikipedia:ISBN. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You will need to stop archiving the on-going discussion of Stefan Banach.

This discussion page is not large enough to justify archiving.

You will not be allowed to censor the discussion by moving it into the archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On 13 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antoni Edward Odyniec, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in this

06:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin

Hello Nihil novi. How are you? I am mainly interested in history of Poland from 1939 to present. I have studied how Polish people lived under

Frederic Chopin

. He is quite popular.

I have to say few things about Chopin. In fact, I knew about Chopin before I knew about Boleslaw Prus.

I haven't edited the article

. I think we should mention about it in the article.

I was busy with other areas of Wikipedia. Hopefully I can make some contributions to the biography of Chopin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Masterpiece: It is, as always, good to hear from you. I hope that you haven't allowed yourself to be disheartened by the egregious difficulties that have been placed in the way toward "

FA

status.

The information that you found in The Times of India concerning Chopin and cystic fibrosis is a real coup. I've summarized it in a note in the article's lead (which is the only place in the article where the putative cause of his death had been stated).

Any further contributions from you to the article will be very welcome. An editor has placed a note on its talk page, bringing attention to the Spanish and Portuguese "Chopin" featured articles. My very limited (read: nonexistent) knowledge of these languages suggests that the English article may be better than those two. With a little concentrated effort on the part of individuals who have ready access to more sources on Chopin, I think it could readily be turned into a featured article.

Best regards,

Nihil novi (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought you may want to comment on his request.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nihil novi. I withdrew my RfA. Thank you for supporting my RfA. Most editors who opposed my RfA expressed that I need to argue better in

) 12:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to commend you...

...on your fine message to Masterpiece2000, regarding his RfA. I am glad to know like-minded individuals are online. :)

talk

) 21:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the philosophy you express on your userpage is exactly what is needed on Wikipedia — and in life. It is good to encounter a congenial spirit. Nihil novi (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia may not be ready for someone quite like me! Thanks again, and stay in touch!

talk

) 02:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know the feeling! Will do! Nihil novi (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message. Nihil, unlike many admins and powerful people on Wikipedia, you are someone who is known for creating and expanding articles. Take care, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. My efforts have been enhanced by your contributions. It is a pleasure working with you! Nihil novi (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nihil novi, I think the links are not supposed to connect to categories. I think there is another way. I added Category:Bolesław Prus to "Bolesław Prus" at commons. See: [8]. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't contribute to Wikimedia Commons. My reply was a little late because I was searching for the password of my commons account! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You've cut through the

Gordian knot! I would've saved a lot of time if I'd asked your help sooner. I've added the more useful items from the category to the gallery. Thank you! Nihil novi (talk

) 05:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting help needed

On a short article I nominated for GA:

17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Nihil novi (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

On mononymous persons, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Gatoclass (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding your article to "See also" links to biographies. It really isn't necessary. It's like adding

) 08:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Triple Cross Square

Thanks for correcting my contributions about

? ;) Best regards Danziger100 (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 19:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Mononymous persons

Done! And thanks for creating the article

Mononymous persons. It's a good article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk

) 06:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing it. And thanks for your generosity in supporting its retention! Nihil novi (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Chopin article

Hi!

It's nice to see you drop back in again...although I haven't edited much of the article, I still watch it on my watchlist and am passionate about its subject. I'm just curious (now seeing you are online, as well), what are your goals with the article? Acheive FA someday, maybe? —LaPianista! ^«talk» 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for getting in touch. I am of course aware of your efforts at developing the article and keeping it on track and free of vandalism and tendentiousness.

Featured-article status would be desirable. Achieving it will, however, I think, require a multi-disciplinary approach. I am not a musician or even a Chopin expert. My main contributions so far, such as they have been, have principally involved translating and importing accurate information from reputable and reliable Polish-language sources and, secondarily, editing the article's text for clarity, English usage and freedom from inadequately-sourced hypotheses.

It would be highly desirable if someone with broad reading in Chopin's life and work were to review the article and introduce additional information as appropriate. A small example: I've read somewhere that Clésinger made a cast of only Chopin's left hand, in consideration of the important role that Chopin gave to the left hand in his compositions; it would be well to find documentation for this, if it is true.

I would of course be happy to contribute, in any way that I may be able, to an effort to bring "

Chopin" up to Featured Article quality. Nihil novi (talk

) 00:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am only an enjoyer of his music, and not an expert in that field, either, though I am a musician. I could help out with grammar and other similar processes, though, when I have the time. In the meanwhile...I can revel in my sentiment of uselessness. :)

The road to a Featured Article would definitely involve what you say, and more. Its paragraphs and overall structure must be considered, especially the lead paragraphs, which are of paramount importance; a reviewer for

WP:LOCE

could help.

As to the facts you mention, I recommend a book, which I am in the process of reading...perhaps you have it? It is Chopin: Pianist and Teacher: As Seen by his Pupils, by Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger. It includes notes about his teaching, playing, and composition habits, all collected from primary sources. —LaPianista! ^«talk» 00:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I envy your musician status, being myself an early fugitive from piano lessons (poor teaching, uninspiring musical selections, my unreadiness to study music, and distraction by competing interests).

When you find interesting passages in Eigeldinger's book, could you cannibalize them for "

Chopin

"?

I might look up the book myself, were I not abiding nightly in the Wiki Land of the Lotus Eaters and regularly proceeding with my quotidian obligations after only 3 hours' sleep. (I am not complaining — Wikipedia has realized an old aspiration of mine to work in the editorial offices of a general-interest periodical.) Nihil novi (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that "

Chopin" will eventually achieve Featured Article status. Perhaps the main thing for now is to keep a benevolent eye on the article. Nihil novi (talk

) 02:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Will cannabalize with abandon when I can. ;) —LaPianista! ^«talk» 17:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

—LaPianista! ^«talk» has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RE:In case you wish to comment...

Hello Nihil. When I logged in, discussions were already closed. I would have voted "Keep". Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Order of Merit Star, Poland

Hello, Nihil. I created the biography of Hubert Markl. He received the Order of Merit Star, Poland. Do you know anything about the Order of Merit Star, Poland? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't ring a bell, and I don't find it in my sources or in Wikipedia's "

Polish awards and decorations

." There are some Polish "Orders of Merit" and "Crosses of Merit," but nothing quite like "Order of Merit Star." Some of the medals are missing illustrations, though, and maybe one of them resembled a star.

Nice article about Hubert Markl! Nihil novi (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The mononymous persons deletions

I thought the previous discussions (entertainer/porn actor) were closed in error by a biased admin. I feel this even more at this junction. How do you assess this process? (I'm querying

talk

) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That was my impression too. Nihil novi (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I figure we should move for a deletion review then. __

talk

) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish-Croatian translators

Hi, Nihil novi.
Thank you for the translation of the article about Stjepan Musulin.
I saw that you've created the category about Polish-Croatian translators, so I'll give you some names that translated from Polish to Croatian: Pero Mioč, Zdravko Malić, Zoran Bundyk, Julije Benešić, Iso Velikanović, Milivoj Slaviček... [9]. AFAIK, Polish poetess Lucja Daniełewska was translating from Croatian to Polish. Kamarad Walter (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to add Stjepan Musulin to the English Wikipedia. Not having a Croatian-English or -Polish dictionary, I was unable to translate the entire source article from the Croatian Wikipedia. Perhaps you could add some of the missing information?

I hope that in due course similar English-Wikipedia articles may be prepared on the translators you list above, and their names included in the Polish-Croatian translators category.

Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Message

Hi there. I've sent you an email. I also feel that you should archive your talk page discussions. It's very long. You can create a subpage User talk:Nihil novi/Archive 1 and copy and paste about 100 messages to that subpage. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nihil, I've sent you another email. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! I'm glad to see you back. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Did you get my email of a few days ago? Let's keep in touch. Nihil novi (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You said that you will be off-wiki for some personal reasons. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia

Hi, Nihil novi. I've created my account on Polish Wikipedia. I don't speak Polish, but I can still make contributions. I can add images, infobox, etc. In fact, I've already made some contributions. I've a question: How do you say "Hi" in Polish? And I hope to see you on Polish Wikipedia. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Witamy w polskiej Wikipedii!—Welcome to the Polish Wikipedia! I'm delighted at the expansion in our common fields of activity. I'm sure you can make a great contribution there as well.

Probably the closest equivalent to "Hi!" is "Cześć!" A slightly more formal, semi-martial version is "Czołem!" There are also more mundane greetings such as "Dzień dobry!" (literally, "Good day!")—which may, depending on the circumstance, be "Good morning!" or "Good afternoon!" There is also "Dobry wieczór!"—"Good evening!"

Jeszcze raz, witamy! Narazie! (Again, welcome! So long for now!) Nihil novi (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

History of the World

It was about three or four weeks ago now that you and I crossed paths on the article History of the World. I reread our discussion on the talk page, and then read some entries on your own talk page, and I want to apologize for being so terse and abrasive. I guess thought I sensed some kind of political bias in the wording, and it was also one of my first experiences using a talk page, so I didn't know how those things usually go. Anyhow, you appear to be a very cordial and friendly editor, and I promise to be more jolly in the future! MarcusMaximus (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No harm done. Nice to hear from you! Nihil novi (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "cite" tag

Hello Nihil Novi.

Why did you remove the cite tag from the Chopin article? I think we should add a source, rather than remove the tag outright. —La Pianista ^{(T•C•S•R)} 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources provided. Nihil novi (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jozef Pilsudski1.jpg

Would you know when was this photo first published, and who is the author? Copyright paranoia team asks for proof it was published before 1994... sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this helps: A similar but not identical photo appears in

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., 2005, vol. 9, p. 444. Source is given as "Culver Pictures." Nihil novi (talk

) 01:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikification

Hi, I noticed you keep making some changes to the William Playfair article format, and I referted some changes. The thing is that I use one kind of format in all articles I wikified and I like to keep it that way. William Playfair is part of a series of articles about visualization who all have the same format and I like to keep it that way. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting reliably sourced info

Why are you deleting reliably sourced material in which "Year 3333" is described as a precursor of the Zydokomuna concept? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest

Łaski's Statute.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it on my list to look at. Nihil novi (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done (edited the text). Nihil novi (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

... and another one:

• Talk:Warsaw Uprising#Featured? The article needs a lot of work to be done. --Teodor Jan Ranicki (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll try and take a look at English style once the content has been stabilized. Nihil novi (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The DYK Medal

		The DYK Medal
		In recognition of your efforts for DYK, and hopefully more great articles to come. Thank you for your well-written contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #8

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 8
	Date: November 8th, 2008
	Time: 2PM
	Place: Metacafe, Palo Alto, California
prev: Meetup 7 - next: Meetup 9

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Polish federalism

Since I know you are interested in this subject, a third opinion could be useful regarding this. Do you think that this metaphor is relevant? I find it nice, but not encyclopedic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Franciszek Ksawery Matejko

What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've expressed my views on the article's talk page. Nihil novi (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam Stanisław Grabowski dyk

talk/_contribs

02:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Adam Stanisław Grabowski

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adam Stanisław Grabowski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

BorgQueen (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk

) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Tadeusz Pełczyński

On 8 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tadeusz Pełczyński, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

BorgQueen (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cryptanalysis of the Enigma

Hi, I have been working on this article for some time. I am pleased to see that you, a much more experienced editor than myself, has an interest in it. I have just altered a chunk from my sandbox that, I think improves the article. There will be more to follow. I may have accidentally undone some of your recent edits in the 'Polish breakthrough' and 'World war II' sections. I will try to repair any damage, but please accept my apologies if I am not entirely successful. TedColes (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Can you please advise me about giving references to a book that has a number of editions. The reason that I gave details of the 1984 (UK) Penguin edition of Welchman's The Hut Six Story, was that that is the edition that I have and from which I can therfore accurately quote page numbers. You have understandably changed the reference to the first (US) edition, but are the page numberings in the in-line citations still accurate? TedColes (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for any needless complications I may have inadvertently introduced. I thought the "1984" date might be an error. Citation pages that I may have entered for the U.S. first edition should be correct. Please let me know if I may be of assistance. Nihil novi (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A cursory look at your recent edits shows some errors. For example, it was Rejewski alone who reconstructed the machine, using group theory. Zyralski and Różycki had no involvement with Enigma before Rejewski had completed the reconstruction.

Your edits have deleted material that I spent some hours placing into the article, as well as layout alterations that had improved its clarity.

Would you consider a restoration of the version as of December 14, 17:58, and then your introducing your additional information? Nihil novi (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I am keen to get things right and certainly don't want an editing war. But you have now deleted quite a lot of my material that was several weeks in preparation. I intend to restore most, if not all, of it, but not as clumsily as before. I will be happy to consider reasoned arguments about omitting the material that I added and the best layout. I am particularly concerned about the loss of my explanation of the 'cycles', which is a better word than 'chains' as it fits in with group theory terminology and has an obvious match with the cyclometer. As regards the page numbers in the different editions of Welchman's The Hut Six Story, if you don't have my edition and I don't have yours, perhaps both editions should be in the list of references, and the in-line citations that include page numbers should specify the edition to which they refer by giving the year of publication. However, I don't see any in-line citations that refer to the 1982 edition. What do you suggest? TedColes (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no inherent conflict between what you suggest and what I have attempted to do. Your point regarding "cycle" terminology seems to me very well taken. I see no reason not to cite Welchman by edition; I had assumed that his original 1982 edition had simply been mis-cited as "1984." Nihil novi (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any clear information about when the Poles build the Cyclometer? My sources are somewhat ambiguous about it. The scenario that seems most likely to me is that it was not built for the initial cataloguing of the cycles in 1933/34, but following the change to Enigma's reflector on 1 November 1937. However, an anonymous editor of the Cyclometer article gives 1936 as the date. Prior to that, the article gave 'about 1934' as the date, which would align with the production of the initial catalogue of the cycles. TedColes (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC) I think that I have answered my own question. http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/aboutus/history_center/wesolkowski.pdf seems to be an authorative source and gives 1934 as the date for Rejewski's cyclometer. TedColes (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Three points.

1. Does ‘samiczki’ translate as ‘female’ or ‘socket’? If so, the wording can be simplified and the parentheses eliminated.

"Samiczka" = "a (little [i.e., diminutive]) female." Translates into English, in this context, as "(a) female."

2. The common meaning of ‘commutator’ is of something that reverses the direction of an electric current, such as that in an electric motor. From the dictionaries that I have consulted, the use of this word to describe the redirection of a current without it being reversed is rare. I would therefore contend that using ‘commutator’ to describe Enigma’s plugboard is likely to confuse rather than to clarify things for most people.

I have seen "commutator" used in the sense of what is here called a "plugboard," but don't recall where. To me, "plugboard" sounds like jargon, compared with "commutator." We can either use "commutator" occasionally, followed by "plugboard" in parentheses, or just use "plugboard."

3. The German elimination of the repetition in the Enigma message keys in May 1940 would have been a major upset to decryption approaches based on ‘females’. By what technique were the Poles able to resume decrypting Enigma messages after the astonishingly short interval of only a three weeks? It is also worth noting that Ronald Lewin in ‘Ultra goes to war’ (1978) on p 36 calls Bertrand’s book ‘Enigma’ (1973) ‘an overblown account of his career’ i.e. it may not be a very trustworthy source. TedColes (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Some early Anglophone authors were gratuitously critical of Bertrand, for example because he had the temerity to list his wife's decorations. She actually deserved what decorations she received, as she shared her husband's dangers and travails with remarkable understanding and acceptance. Please note, however, that it is not only Bertrand who speaks of resumption of decryption on May 20, but also Lt. Col.

Polish Cipher Bureau. I would therefore tread cautiously. Nihil novi (talk

) 22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any information as to what method PC Bruno used to resume the decryption of Enigma messages on 20 May 1940? TedColes (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kozaczuk (p. 115, note 1) cites Zygalski's diary as his source when stating that "After several days' intense work on renewing Enigma decrypt[ion] at Bruno, the [Polish] cryptologists left for Deuxième Bureau headquarters in Paris on 16 May 1940."

Bertrand (Enigma, 1973, pp. 88–89) writes that "It took superhuman day-and-night effort to overcome this new difficulty: on May 20, decrypt[ion] resumed."

Rejewski writes (Appendix C to Kozaczuk's Enigma, p. 243): "But after the defeat of France, sometime in 1940 or 1941, the Germans once again completely changed the procedure for enciphering message keys, and as a result Zygalski's sheets, too, became completely useless."

In Appendix D to Kozaczuk's Enigma (pp. 269–70) Rejewski writes: "When the French signed the armistice with the Germans in June 1940, Major Bertrand organized our escape to Algeria, and when, in the fall of the same year we returned to the unoccupied zone of France in order to act clandestinely under Major Bertrand's direction, we found that, in the interim, the Germans had once again changed the procedure for transmitting message keys. As a result, the Zygalski sheets became useless."

It is unclear to me, when Rejewski speaks of changes made by the Germans "after the defeat of France," what, if any, was the relation of those changes to the ones that they had made before their invasion of France.

Perhaps research into original documentation will eventually provide cryptologic details and clarify the timing of events.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have brought forward into the description of the Polish work, much of the description of the non-mechanical methods used at Bletchley Park as I think it is safe to assume that they were also used by the Poles. TedColes (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Am I right in inferring that you are an expert on the Polish language? If so, and if you haven’t already seen them, you might be interested in a couple of snippets from Jack Copeland’s book The Essential Turing. On p.236 he says, (citing Kozaczuk, Enigma 63):

The equivalent Polish term 'samiczki', meaning 'females', was quite likely the result of a play on words, 'samiczki' being used as short for a Polish phrase meaning 'the same places.

On p.240 in footnote 53 he says:

The indicators and indicator settings used in this example are adapted from p.266 of Kasparek's translation of Rejewski's 'Jak Matematycy polscy rozszyfrowali Enigme' in Kozaczuk, Enigma, The present description of the bomby has been reconstructed from Rejewski's rather compressed account appearing on that page. Unfortunately, Stepenske's translation of these same paragraphs in the Annals of the History of Computing is marred by an error that seriously affects the sense. The phrase that Steperiske translates 'by striking key W three times in a row, the same lamp would light' (p. 226) should be translated 'if key W is struck the same lamp will light again after three more strokes'. (Please excuse any mis-transcription)

Can you verify these remarks? Incidentally, I find that the vast majority of sources that I have consulted use ‘bomba’ and ‘bomby’ for the Polish machine, rather than ‘bomb’ and ‘bombs’. I still favour reverting to this more common and less ambiguous terminology. Do you feel very strongly about this issue? TedColes (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone has access to the original Polish text of Rejewski's "How the Polish Mathematicians Broke Enigma" (1980), I can try to verify the accuracy of the English translation (Appendix D) in Kozaczuk's 1984 Enigma.

Similarly, if someone has the original Polish text of Rejewski's "Report of Cryptological Work on the German Enigma Machine Cipher" (Uzès, 1942) and his 1967 "Memoirs of My Work in the Cipher Bureau of Section II of the General Staff, 1932–1945," these documents might possibly shed light on the "samiczki" and other questions.

The fact that many English-language sources refer to the Polish cryptological bomb as a "bomba" is no overwhelming recommendation for that usage. Many of those same sources likewise fatuously refer to cipher-breakers as "code-breakers." Nihil novi (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Polish-Georgian alliance

Of 1920. I thought you may be interested in this new article I've just created. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Did some editing. You should nominate it for "Did you know...?" Nihil novi (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry XMAS

AFD voided discussion notification

An AFD discussion in which you participated has been declared void and is now relisted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radwan_Dąbrowski-Żądło_Family_(2nd_nomination_-_voided) . Has been closed. The new discussion is availble at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radwan_Dąbrowski-Żądło_Family_(2nd_nomination).

This notification is not an attempt at canvassing , as it is being sent with no recommendation, and to all parties who significantly contributed to the original discussion, as shown inside this collapsed section.

Notified User talk:Exxess (161 edits) User talk:Poeticbent (10 edits) User talk:Ecoleetage (2 edits) User talk:Piotrus (5 edits) User talk:Petri Krohn (2 edits) User talk:Nihil novi (3 edits) User talk:Matthead Not notified User talk:BJBot (4 edits) - image removal User talk:SineBot (2 edits) - signing unsigned comments User talk:Black Kite - struck a vote User talk:Master of Puppets - commented on process User talk:Eastern876 - blocked as ducksock User talk:Jerry (2 edits) - admin who closed AFD User talk:Bjweeks - image tagging WP:SPA

Best wishes for a peaceful 2009

talk

) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Warsaw Uprising

I've put it up for FAR:

talk

) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Style of English

Hi!

I am intrigued by the style of English that you use. I am tempted to think that you have worked as a sub-editor. Most of your changes seem to me to be improvements, albeit often marginal ones, which could carry a danger of irritating the editor whose prose you have changed. One or two of your edits to Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, I find excessively American to my British ears. You will have seen that your change of 'likely' from an adverb to a verb was a step too far for me. Your latest edit of this article to reverse the edit by Soler97 also seems to me to be in the wrong direction. Is 'Rejewski in about 1934...' worse than 'Rejewski about 1934...'? To me the former is distinctly better. I know that Noah Webster intentionally moved American English away from British English, and many of his changes were improvements that deserve to be in the international language that English has become.

I am genuinely curious to know whether 'the Germans would be likely to stop' and 'Rejewski in about 1934...' really are unpleasant to an American ear.

Kind regards,

--TedColes (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"... the Germans would be likely to stop...": the change of "be likely to" to "likely" was not "from an adverb to a verb," but the reverse.

In both instances cited, the intent was, as Orwell recommends, to cut out useless verbiage. It takes readers mental energy to process words, and it is therefore incumbent on authors not to use more words than necessary. Usually Britons are better at observing this principle than are Americans. Nihil novi (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus

Please do not remove my edits for no reason and with no explanation, especially when they are valid, proper contributions to the article... Thank you... Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Which of your edits to "Nicolaus Copernicus" have I removed? I do not see your name attached to any recent edits that I have intervened with. Nihil novi (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Edmund Chojecki

On February 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edmund Chojecki, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Witam! Inspirujący artykuł napisałeś (o Edmundzie Chojeckim). Ciekawe, że nie było go wcześniej w polskiej wikipedii. Dobra robota, dzięki - Tescobar (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dziękuję—również za wersję polską artykułu i uzupełnienia, co do Chojeckiego lat warszawskich. Ciekaw jestem, gdzie je znalazłeś (chętnie podałbym odnośne źródła w angielskiej wersji artykułu)? Nihil novi (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Aleksander Świętochowski

your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ∗ \ / (⁂

) 23:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nihil novi, I've verified your DYK nom. And please align images at the top of WP articles to the right side. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, AdjustShift!

I had thought that photos and pictures of persons were supposed to face into rather than out of the article? Nihil novi (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks

Hey Nihil

I just wanted to say thanks for all the work you have done on the Enigma article. I realy appreciate how much work you have put in. So thanks a lot, at least one person appreciates it. :)

SimonTrew (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your generous comment. For my part I appreciate your efforts, especially at maintaining NPOV in "Cryptanalysis of the Enigma." I think that the article has gained a good deal from recent contributions by a number of persons. Nihil novi (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wpływologia

Please stop adding this to pages:

• Wpływologia (Polish: "Influenceology")

I don't see your addition as serving the readers of the pages you targeted, I see it as serving only the Wpływologia page, giving it further credibility and addition links. For the benefit of the readers, I am reverting your spamming of this link across a number of pages. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that your take on this is mistaken, and that the article, as now edited, does contribute something of broader interest. Nihil novi (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Chopin

as one of music's greatest tone poets

Hello Nihil novi,

I was wondering why Chopin must be referred to as one of music's greatest tone poets in the introductory paragraph of the page? If you take a look at Chopin's talk page, you will notice this topic has already been covered. The article had made it clear that Chopin is a composer of chiefly non-programic music, and his compositions rarely have any extra-musical connotations. In fact, just about all of the "nicknames" and stories that have been applied to his pieces were done so by other people after his death. Maybe occasionally we will find a piece that might have a story behind it, but this is most definitely not enough to go on to call him one of the "greatest tone poets", which is in itself very POV-based and surely not the type of statements that should be found on WikiPedia. In fact, stating that he is "widely regarded as the greatest Polish composer" is already pushing the envelope, and then following that up with "one of the greatest tone poets" crosses the line, IMHO. To add to that, the source cited is an offline source not readily accessible, that weakens the case even further. I suggest we remove the tone poet claim, and even consider rewording the preceding "widely regarded as the greatest Polish composer" line as well, since that's clearly weasel language and non-neutral POV. TheFinalSay (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference to

Chopin" introduction. Nihil novi (talk

) 00:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Henryk Rzewuski

Thank you for your edits to Henryk Rzewuski. However, "Edit" is probably not the best choice for an edit summary, as it provides no more information than no edit summary does. Please keep this in mind when making future edits, and try to write edit summaries that provide a description of the edits you're making. Thank you! --Ericdn (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. However, when I'm starting a new article, I sometimes prefer to devote my energies to writing it rather than writing about it. Nihil novi (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Aleksander Świętochowski

On March 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aleksander Świętochowski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1976 I, Claudius

Hi, You noticed it was missing from Television so you put it back. Sorry, I actually moved it from there a month or two ago, and put it in Films with the other miniseries. (I have left normal weekly TV shows in the Television section.)

Once I moved it, I watched a few of the episodes again (I last saw the series when it first aired back in 1976), and I expanded it to this:

I, Claudius — 1976 BBC miniseries by Herbert Wise on political violence in ancient Rome, involving the murders of members of the Imperial family – Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius, Lucius, the Emperor Augustus (poisoned by his wife Livia), Postumus, Germanicus, "Castor", "Helen", Drusus and Nero, Livilla, the Emperor Tiberius, Gemellus, Drusilla and fœtus, the Emperor Caligula (John Hurt), Caesonia and Julia Drusilla, Messalina, the Emperor Claudius (Derek Jacobi), Britannicus, Agrippinilla – and others

(Some of that is not very historical. Drusilla, for example.)

I also put in the 1937 and 2010 versions of the story, and added an entry to Novels.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto)

(I'm sorry. I sort of took over your page. I obviously like it a lot. But many years ago, I was a Top Contributor at the IMDb, so this is an easy area for me. Historical documentary was my main field at the IMDb.)

Varlaam, thanks for your gracious note. I did indeed miss that you had moved

Assassinations in fiction." I missed it because I had stopped closely following your edits after I discovered your amazing expertise in the subject. I have been wondering how you came by it, and so am glad to have heard from you. There cannot be many originators of articles who are so fortunate in subsequent contributors. Thanks for helping turn "Assassinations" into the substantial article that it has become! Nihil novi (talk

) 06:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that you had page-triggering enabled, which you then disabled after you got besieged with notifications that someone was tampering with your pet page.

I have an interest in languages which I inherited from my grandfather who spoke six. English was his sixth. I find a lot of information in the other languages of Wikipedia. Your ID is amusing: "Nothing new".

For some reason, I believe you to be in Poland. Is that correct, or a false assumption? At any rate, there was a Polish slant to some of your work. I have Polish ancestry, so that was discernible to me.

I'm actually concerned about the manageability of that page now that it's gotten so large. Should it be split? But there are a lot of useful cross-references from Novels/Plays into Films. There's a cohesion there. Varlaam (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland

Congratulations. Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has reviewed your contributions and decided you are an active member. Thank you for your encyclopedic contributions! PS. Please also consider editing your entry in our participants list to state your areas of expertise/interest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrofits

Hi again, (Any comment on my note from March 17?)

Do you happen to know where global changes and retrofits are discussed at Wikipedia, before they get implemented?

I've just noticed that someone has done a retrofit where all Nazi films are now German films, all Fascist films are now Italian films. Like there is no difference at all there.

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question, about "retrofits." I think, if anyone might know, it would be Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus.

Regarding "

Assassinations in fiction

," I agree: there is "a cohesion" there.

As to my sense of national self-identification: it tends to depend on which country I feel least exasperated with at a given moment. Nihil novi (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Henryk Rzewuski

On March 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henryk Rzewuski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Prehistory and protohistory of Poland

I would like to renominate this for GAC, but it could use a copyedit by somebody with English proficiency for prose issues. Would you mind?

Hmmm, I am not sure about the moves: consider where Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age are - and try moving them, and see what happens.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are you proposing to move them to? Nihil novi (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Completed copyedit, as best I could. Nihil novi (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ed Ricketts

Hi. Thanks for your edits to Ed Ricketts. I'm not sure why you are taking paragraphs and splitting them up, but I don't think that is helpful. It almost appears that you are reading the article from a screen with a larger resolution. Remember, when changing layout, do not edit based on a unique screen resolution. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I hope that most of my edits have been helpful.

My criterion in splitting paragraphs is not screen resolution, but: 1) easier assimilation of content by readers; 2) greater noticeability of distinct items of information.

I think that it is also often easier to track sentences when there are occasional breaks among them. Nihil novi (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I think the paragraph splitting is debatable and on one hand is a matter of preference, but on the other hand, encyclopedic style usually dictates grouping sentences together along the same idea. (see also

Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Paragraphs). Since the paragraph in question was devoted to a summary of the history of the lab, I don't think it should have been split up, and now, the paragraph is too short. This is especially true in the "Life" section where the paragraphs need to be merged together. Viriditas (talk

) 03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered, instead, expanding some of the shorter paragraphs (which frequently address quite distinct periods or episodes in Ricketts' life)? Nihil novi (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly will consider it, especially if you make a specific request on the talk page. However, you are working backwards, that is to say, paragraphs are split up for proposed expansion after one has expanded the material, not before. But let me be more direct: Can you point me to a single, featured biographical article that uses short paragraphs like you are using them? And, have you ever owned or read an actual print encyclopedia? The reason I ask is because you are not using encyclopedic style, you are using what is called news or journalistic style. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My guide in editing is not some arbitrary style, but the requisites of communicativeness and clarity. Thus, I believe I split some "Ed Ricketts" paragraphs (and added explanatory material) when I found myself confused, for example, about the relations among various members of his families of origin and marriage.

Perhaps the closest thing to a stylistic guide, to me, is the rules that George Orwell gives in his essay on "Politics and the English Language."

In any case, the important thing is that you are writing on a deserving subject, and doing a pretty good job. Be bold! Nihil novi (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are good rules. Well, at least I know where you are coming from now. Thanks for explaining. Please continue doing what you do best. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I answered your question on my talk page, which I missed the first time around. I'll try and add the edition and reference in the next two hours. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it now. In my edition, the passage is on p. 16—in chapter 5 (V), as you say. Nihil novi (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding your edition to the reference is unnecessary. Both references refer to the Penguin edition, which bought Viking Press, the original publisher of Steinbeck's book, in 1975.[10] Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This was pretty stubborn and just plain silly. As I previously said, the quote is famous, and the two sources that quote it, are using the Penguin edition and refer to it in their sources as "p.29". Anyone can find it by looking at the two sources that discuss it or by looking at the reference section. There is no need to state "Chapter 5" in the text at all, and the book you are using is not considered the standard text, and we don't change the references simply to cater to a single individual like yourself using a "pocketbooks" edition. If the edition was obscure, or the quote was unknown, you might have a point, but as the best references refer to the page number and the same edition, you don't. Care to find me a single good reliable source that refers to "pocketbooks"? If you are going to use "Chapter 5", then please use it in the reference, not in the text. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with your latest round of edits. Much of the material you are copying wholesale from sources like American Scientist and replacing the old material which was paraphrased and rewritten to avoid plagiarism. Please correct this or I will be forced to revert all of your new edits. Again, you need to rewrite the material in your own words. Please do not copy it directly from the sources as you are doing. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but both of the new contributions you have added can only be described as plagiarism. I don't think you meant to do this, so please remove them. The content you have copied is copyrighted. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you have not replied, you give me no choice but to revert the new additions or make a report at the administrators noticeboard and

WP:CV. I should warn you, that if you attempt to revert my removal of the CV and add it back into the article, you could get blocked. Viriditas (talk

) 23:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is most unpleasant. Giving Nihil novi a mere eight minutes to correct this problem was impatient and highhanded. --

talk

) 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are misinformed as to the policies. Copyright violations are to be removed on sight. Please feel free to escalate this issue to the copyright and administrator noticeboards if you so require. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you are getting highhanded with me as well. Don't. Plagiarism is a fraught issue, and Wikipedia currently has poor procedures for dealing with it. There is a new copyright cleanup project starting to deal with it (which bye the way I belong to). You are right to crack down hard on plagiarism, but the process should start with politely pointing out the issue, and referring the offender to appropriate resources. Unfortunately, those resources are not yet properly developed. But a little hand holding doesn't hurt if the offender is clearly trying to fix it. --

talk

) 01:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, you are misinformed. I notified Nihil novi at 23:03. The user ignored me, and continued to edit without responding at 23:03 and 23:15. After waiting 16 minutes, not the eight you claim above, I reverted. The user then found it necessary to respond to my repeated queries at 23:30, but with little substance other than blaming the problem on me. I hope this corrects your mistaken view. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, be unhelpful and high-handed... --

talk

) 03:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am being very helpful, and I have repeatedly attempted to engage the user in discussion only to be met with stubborn replies "blaming" me for their problems. As a member of the copyvio project, perhaps you could find the time to help out as well. Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You say Nihil novi has met you only with stubborn replies "blaming" you. Where? I can't find even one example. It seems to me that he has been consistently polite, occasionally asking for clarification where he is not sure how to proceed. You, on the other hand, seem very prickly, and you have made a grave accusation before checking it out. If your accusation turns out false, you owe Nihil novi an apology. Anyway, you are seeing the process through, and that is good. I would be happy to help out if you like, but I would need access to the relevant sources. --

talk

) 05:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this source? I don't know what you are referring to with the rest of your comments, so unless you are specific, I can't address them. I generally deal with very specific things so as to avoid misunderstanding. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really cannot understand what I am referring to, then the time has come for you to hand in your administrative mop. My comments would be perfectly clear to anyone else. --

talk

) 09:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the time has come for you to be specific. When someone asks you to clarify, it's best to do so. And, I'm not an administrator, so I've got nothing to "hand in". I hope I've cleared up another misperception for you. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Look let's just drop this mutual sniping. I've no idea what I'm meant to "put up", and I was thinking of another editor when I wrote that last message. --

talk

) 12:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've withdraw that statement since it seems it can be misinterpreted. I was merely pointing out that an occasional inadvertent plagiarism is hard to avoid (even if one rewrites from scratch). --

talk

) 18:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The accusation I mentioned was your implication that Nihil novi was a sockpuppet, here. --

talk

) 18:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You might consider using a little patience. I am editing added material as you suggested. Nihil novi (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CV cannot appear in the edit history, so there may have to be some deletions. If you want to expand the article, first gather your sources. Then, take notes and rewrite the material in your own words, paying special attention to not use the same words or phrases from the original source material. Please proceed very carefully. Editors who do this again after being warned, are often permanently blocked, as this is a legal issue. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your use of quotes around "plagiarism" in the edit summary tells me you still don't understand the problem. I personally own the copy of American Scientist you copied the material from to the article and anyone can freely Google copies of the passage you added, which was a copyright violation. If this is going to be an issue with you in the future, let me know so I can make a report. Lastly, you are still using the exact wording, although not as explicitly and blatantly as before, so you either need to learn to rewrite the material in your own words or stop adding material directly from the source without quotes. What is interesting is that you also changed the biography section back to "life". A few years back we had a problem editor who would constantly change those two headings and then add copyright violations just like you are doing now. I'm chalking it up to a coincidence in editing styles, but I assure you I'm going to look into it. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Which passages involve "the exact wording"? I'd like to make any necessary changes. Nihil novi (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to this and the subsequent edits you have made since I reverted the copyvio. And for some reason that I cannot figure out, you have still not linked to the source you are using. When you do so, you will see that you have used the same language, but this time rephrased and no longer directly copied word for word. If you aren't going to rewrite it, but you still want to use the same words, then you are better off quoting like this, "scientists, writers, prostitutes, musicians, artists, academics and bums". Otherwise, you are using the same language as the original author. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, why did you claim that the article was on p.1? I'm holding that copy in my hand, and the article is on pp.568-569. There is no "p.1" in the November-December issue because American Scientist uses sequential page numbering from the beginning of the year. "Page 1" would appear in the January-February 2004 issue. And Bookshelf articles always appear at the back, not in the front. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Attracted visitors who ran the gamut from writers, artists and musicians to prostitutes and bums" is a rewrite. I did give the source (Robison). I did not see a page number in the on-line version, except for a boxed statement that this is page 1. Nihil novi (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The page number on the online version is a typo, so good catch, but it's wrong and I explained to you why in my above reply. The "rewrite" uses the same words, more or less, so it's not really a rewrite. Like I said, in this situation, it is recommended to use a quote to preserve the intention of the author and maintain authorship. If you are using the same words, it isn't a rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite does not, I believe, use even all the same references to categories of persons who visited the lab, so I cannot very well place the passage in quotes. And the intent clearly is not to plagiarize, or I would certainly not have cited the source of the information. Nihil novi (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read the plagiarism essay, then you know you should be using a quote. That is best practice. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you place in quotes something that is not a quotation? Nihil novi (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

They are the same words used by a book reviewer who is writing about Tamm's book. You either need to quote the passage in question or you need to stop using it. The source for this material is Tamm, not the book reviewer, yet you have taken the same words and phrasing as the reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nihil novi, here is an upcoming

talk

) 01:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I found it illuminating and helpful. Nihil novi (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the article using an online plagiarism detector called copyscape. There was a bit which was not completely paraphrased . I copy edited it here, and it checks out okay now. I suggest you use copyscape. It seems to be the most generally used detector on the web, and is used in court cases. Unfortunately it costs money, US$10 for 200 checks. But if you edit Wikipedia, it is worth it. Wikipedia should really provide software like this for its editors free of charge, but it hasn't happened yet. Like you, I had some trouble with plagiarism myself. It was handled incompetently by a pompous editor on a power trip. Still, it's been a good lesson and I now use copyscape to check my final edits. (Mind you, there is more to plagiarism than copyscape can pick up, but, at least, if copyscape flags you then you have got it wrong). When you use it, use it both ways. For example, I pasted the text of

talk

) 11:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your beneficent intervention in the current controversy regarding "Ed Ricketts," and for so generously educating us on the thorny questions of plagiarism. I can only wish that every Wikipepdian could experience such patient and selfless mentoring. Nihil novi (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nihil novi, I'm glad that Geronimo20 is helping you, and I want to apologize for getting off on the wrong foot with you. In the next few weeks, I look forward to working on Ed Ricketts with you and improving it. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell

Thanks so much for the copyedit of Joseph Campbell! It becomes impossible, after a while, to see where style and content have gotten sloppy. Your sharp eye was much appreciated. David Kudler (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad if I was able to be of help. Your fine article gave me heightened appreciation of Campbell's work and of the mutual influences between him and his various milieus.

(I appreciate, too, what you say about how easy it is to lose objectivity concerning one's own compositions—I've experienced this myself!)

Thanks for getting in touch! Nihil novi (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Irena's Vow

On April 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Irena's Vow, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish culture during World War II

In the past you've copyedited this article once. It has however failed the recent FAC nomination due to objections that this article has not been sufficiently copyedited before and that there are some "prose issues". I'd like to ask you to consider copyediting it again (I am not an native speaker of English so I cannot spot those "prose issues" myself). Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away. Is copyediting still needed? Nihil novi (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Consistency?

Nihil novi, according to your edit ((Copernicus' use of the German language does not of itself make him a German astronomer, any more than it would make a German-speaking Swiss astronomer a German.)), you now have to remove all Polish categories from Polish-speaking 19th century figures, like Marie Curie, as they were subjects to the Russian, Austrian, Prussian/German monarchs, or emigrants to other countries. As there was no Poland for 123 years, there were no Polish citizens in that time,and thus no Polish astronomers or similar. The other choice would be to leave the Polish categories, and re-add German categories to German-speaking Prussians of the "Polish partition" (1466-1776), like Copernicus, Hevelius, Fahrenheit etc.. Please be consistent, pick one standard: classification according to ethnicity/culture/language, or by state/citizenship. The "everybody was Polish, always and everywhere" war cry should be left to Serafin and his sock army. -- Matthead  Discuß   05:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Copernicus objected to being a Polish citizen or wanted to be a citizen of Germany—a country that did not then exist. Indeed, Copernicus defended his province of the Polish Kingdom against German attacks. Nihil novi (talk

) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

historic 1922 assassination of Polish President

Hi, it's me.
Thanks for reverting Ilovemichaelcrichton and his Jurassic Park. Ha, ha.
Obviously, just a kid.

I think you mean "historical" here, not "historic", perhaps? Those are distinct.

But the way I have been writing the data, if I say "1922 assassination", then that is an historical event. It's real. It doesn't require a word like historic(al). Also, when it is the date of a real event, not an imaginary event, I write 1922. For example, in Woody Allen's Love and Death, it's 1812. But in Woody Allen's Sleeper it's 2173 because that is not a real event.

So I think I want to modify some of your recent changes.

Now, I love Woody Allen. I read ALL of his books 30 years ago. But I NEVER include character names. Like Boris. Because the names of fictional characters are not important.

In my thinking, if I name a person, Napoleon, then he's real, and I can say Napoleon. If he's fictional, only his job is important (hitman), not his name. So I never include that. It's unnecessary. It's too much information.

What do you think?

Varlaam (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So, just so we are clear, I would write JFK was killed in 1963, because it is a real person and a real event, but if it's a supermodel in a fictional story who gets killed, then I would write 1963. That is one of the ways I am using now to distinguish history (and fictionalized history) from pure fiction.

Sounds good. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand your criteria explicitly. Nihil novi (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think that my adding "historic" came from a certain uneasiness as to how to deal, in an article on "

Assassinations in fiction," with a film that dramatizes a non-fictional event. Nihil novi (talk

) 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish culture during World War II

Thank you for copyediting this article. I've renominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II/archive3. Feel free to comment, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Jakub Gorski → Jakub Górski

• I have corrected the copy-and-paste move
  Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel quite helpless about some technical aspects of work on Wikipedia and greatly appreciate your generous assistance. Nihil novi (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Blue and red links

Hi! In my opinion, there is not a good idea to put names of people who have no articles in Wikipedia, both from the aestethic (red links) and highest respectability (blue links) point of view (i.e. List of Germans, or List of chess players). On the other hand, there is a possibility to appear not really important people or even fictional persons. -- Mibelz (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Poetry article.

I've just noticed that you have undone one of my recent edits to

sneer quotes

, or what? I'm not clear about your intention; if I'm not clear about it, other readers also may not be, and WP writing should avoid opacity.

I assumed in my edit that the original writer had intended an opposition of "poetic prose" (text characterised as prose, but with features of poetry) to "prose poetry" (text characterised as poetry, but with features of prose). I made the edit because I saw no implication or need of any implication of the common meaning of "prosaic" in the surrounding text (and it would have been a misleading technical use of "prosaic" in the subsidiary meaning); nor was there any evidence of a sarcastic or ironic tone that just possibly might have merited sneer-quoting - though I think sneer-quotes should rarely be used in encyclopaedic writing.

So: is there something that you saw there that I missed in my edit, or were you seeing something that the sense of the text didn't actually imply? I'm open to being convinced. Kay Dekker (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Some prose strikes readers as being poetic. Conversely, some texts that show formal characteristics of poetry (verse, rhyme, etc.) may arguably be prosaic, in the non-technical sense--that is, such texts may not seem very poetic. That is the distinction that was meant (and, I think, a useful distinction). The quotation marks may be dispensed with if you feel they are superfluous. Nihil novi (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply! Yes, I see what you were implying. I still do prefer my original version, but I'm entirely happy to compromise on removing the quotes. Kay Dekker (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's better without the quotes. Nihil novi (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish culture in WWII FAC

Thank you for your comments there; you may want to consider voting as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish Club of San Francisco

By any chance, would you happen to live there? I am looking for a place to stay in SF for a few days in August :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Canons

Future protestant Jan Łaski was ordinated Catholic priest and Catholic canon untill he converted to protestantism. see pl article. Lucas Watzenrode was bad linked from Polish page. I have repaired it. Mathiasrex (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Jan Szylling

Could you add dates of his birth/death, or at least estimates? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sebastian Petrycy

On June 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sebastian Petrycy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants 27 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Józef Kalasanty Szaniawski

On June 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Józef Kalasanty Szaniawski, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

You've been here long enough to know that misleading edit summaries like this are unacceptable. I'm not going to template you because you should know better. If you have a problem with my edits, discuss it at the article's talk page instead of reverting. If you do this again I'm going to report you for edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And I'll report you for vandalism. Nihil novi (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What vandalism? Tagging your article? I suggest you read

What vandalism is not. And, again, if you have a problem with my edits, you need to discuss at the talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

03:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reported you here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This message was copied almost verbatim from the message you left me at Talk:Perfection. Please see the notice at the top of the noticeboard: "Do not continue a dispute on this page. (Uninvolved users may wish to move disputes to a more appropriate place.)". The noticeboard is not the place to comment on content issues like that, it's only a place to discuss reverting and edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

While Rjanag had no grounds to report you to ANI/3RR, he is right that your edit summary was misleading (revert is not copyedit), and you should not abuse the word "vandalism" - his edits are no more vandalism than yours were edit warring. It's good that you are both talking on article's talk, ; please assume good faith and try to reach a consensus that way. You are both experienced and respected editors and I hope you can work out your issues peacefully.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Still edit warring

What is the meaning of this? Numerous editors have weighed in at the talk page supporting the changes I proposed, you never responded, and now you've undone it. You are ignoring both clear formatting guidelines (

You don't own the page. Again, if you have a problem with the edit, don't revert, go explain your problem at the talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

12:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Piotr Chmielowski

Do nominate DYK worthy articles for

archive your talk page, I am having trouble loading it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

17:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.