User talk:Piotrus/Archive 35

SEE: SPIN -- Jarosław Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan

You might want to take a look at that.  They're using my language directly from Wikipedia, which is what I'm trying to get through to you about his family background.

ALSO SEE: Study Platform on Interlocking Nationalism

Keep that in mind with your deletion nominations, particularly on seed articles.

I see the relevance of that particular article you twice nominated for deletion, but I'm not done yet.

Thanks.

And see User talk:Malik Shabazz#Thank You for Contacting Me for issues I see around User:Exxess/Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan.

Other than that, the matter is behind me. -- Exxess (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also see Ronald K. Hoeflin.  Those societies mentioned always fragment.  If you're smart, you'll understand why. -- Exxess (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it strains credulity (mine, anyway) to believe that you didn't realize that the Adam Mickiewicz article was the subject of a dispute among Lithuanian and Polish editors with whom you are well-acquainted until the moment before you were going to hit save, as you state here [7]. (Quote: But moments before I was about to hit the save button, I realized that the article seems to be in the midst of an edit war related to the subject nationality...). (Recent article/talk page history: [8], [9]). You haven't edited the article since 2007 [10] and you must have thousands of other articles that need improvement on your watchlist.

You could have posted an article edit request to the PL noticeboard re this, as you have for many articles during the past few months.

In my view the A.M. part of your appeal demonstrates.. what to call it... a lack of forthcoming-ness. The remainder of the appeal, in which you speak of WP's losses from your lack of participation, that's a different story that others can think over.

If you remove the A.M. section I shan't contest your appeal, since lifting your topic ban now or in March doesn't make much difference in the long run. But I am concerned about that part - possibly the readers will take your assertion at face value without checking the article/talk page histories. You could either remove that section (since it hasn't been commented on there yet) or strike it. If you choose not to do either, I may bring it up at the AE appeal.

I'd prefer that we keep the conversation here, but if you'd rather have it on my talk page, that's OK by me - if so I'll post talkbacks. Novickas (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew about the nationality debate, of course, but I did not want to join it - I just wanted to fix a minor referencing problem, and moments before I hit the save button I realized that editing this article could be a topic ban violation (even through my edit had nothing to do with it). Perhaps this isn't clear in my request. I will clarify this in the request when I have a little more time (in a day or two); overall I think you have a point but I'll have to think how the wording could be clarified (if you want to suggest such a revised wording for me here to consider, please do so). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, you say your topic ban has fuzzy boundaries, but acknowledge here that you knew the A.M. article was disputed. So you do know where the line is.

If I were in your shoes, I'd be staying well inside the line. Thereby sparing fellow editors the aggravation of evaluating my edits and incident reports - to me that's more important than the minor improvements you might have made during some of these toeing-the-line ventures. Clearly the community has found evaluation exhaustingly time-consuming and sometimes inconclusive. I wouldn't cite that as a reason for lifting my ban - I'd see the evaluation processes as an unfortunate waste of community resources. I'd try to show that I had helped resolve disputes using a venue open to me, which in your case would be the PL noticeboard. (Other relevant noticeboard notices pointing to the discussions there would certainly be OK by me too). To demonstrate my readiness to conduct open, honest business here. Novickas (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I realized that the AM article could be seen as being a part of it, and that even making an uncontroversial edit to it could be seen as topic ban violation, if the topic ban would be interpreted by its letter, not the spirit. I am not sure at this point how I could improve my Amendment statement; as I said above you are welcome to suggest an alternative wording here (perhaps there is some unintended confusion in my current statement that I am not seeing?).

I very much agree about staying well inside the line. Because the line is so blurry, however, it is difficult: I've been trying to stay well inside it for the past months, but the results have been mixed, as I am sure you realize.

The fact that the community has to waste time analyzing my edits is certainly a problem; it is only part of a larger one stemming from well-meant but poorly design remedies. The fact that some editors had to waste their times carrying out edits I proposed on

WT:POLAND, where I could've done those edits myself thus saving their time for more useful tasks is just one more problem. As things stand, the best way for me to avoid aggravating the situation is to avoid the EE area altogether, therefore voluntarily restricting myself beyond the intended level of remedies. I find this solution less than satisfactory, but perhaps necessary for the near future. The sooner we can move beyond those issues and return to the normal situation, the better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

03:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you dichotomously posit complete avoidance of EE topics as your alternative? You no longer need to ask others to do uncontroversial things, like article project tagging, DKY proposals, etc - that looks to me like the bulk of your past task requests. And you remain free to bring things up at the Poland Project page. Novickas (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you find yourself under a similar topic ban, which I hope will not happen, and are as active as I in creating content, which I do wish for, then we can talk about whether you'll find navigating the topic ban easier. Sure, we can all agree on some issues being totally uncontroversial and other being quite obviously so. Majority, however, are in those blurry waters. Since I tried to navigate them and didn't fair so well for various reasons, including the fact that different editors interpret it differently (proof being on AE) I am in no mood to try to navigate this minefield further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This dialogue doesn't seem to have gone well, from my point of view anyway. I posted at the AE request. I remain convinced that you could navigate the ban and that your thinking twice or thrice, or asking uninvolved editors or admins beforehand, would benefit WP by averting AE actions. You could post uncontroversial improvement suggestions to potentially disputed articles at my talk page. (I'd do the A.M. one if I understood what you meant). Novickas (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So somebody else could report me for violating the ban? No, thanks. If I have to discuss those issues somewhere, I'll do so at

WT:POLAND, as the previous amendment allows me to. Out of sheer curiosity, why do you think I should not edit those articles now but (presumably) will be able to do so from late March? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

20:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, if you post at my talk page about it first, and I say 'OK by me' or do it myself, and someone else then reports you to AE, I'll take the heat. You'd just have to trust me on that one, which you may of course not wish to do. (And I sometimes have family committments that prevent the speedy responses that WPians like). As to why March and not now - as I mentioned at AE, I think you have wikilawyered, but people can change. Novickas (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the admins/arbitrators at AE determined that it wasn't me who was wikilawyering, but I do agree with you that those proceedings were a sad waste of time. Sadly, the only way - from my perspective - to avoid them in the future, is to avoid all EE topics, because things I thought were fine, to some, apparently, aren't. Anyway, if you want to fix the problem with the AM article, since in one of your recent comments you indicated the willingness to look into that issue, please consider moving the template I cite in my request to the references section. Hopefully this request of mine will not provoke undue dramu. Once you do so, please explain to me how is Wikipedia benefiting from this fix being delayed by days, if not weeks, and from you having to waste your time on this issue instead of doing something else... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

True, no one besides me has called it wikilawyering. I'm not really a fan of the term. It's out there as an essay WP:Wikilawyering but I don't like most of those. See, when I get a traffic ticket, I just pay the 75 bucks. After venting at home about how everyone else drives 72 mph, or how hard it was to see the 'No Left Turn 6-7 PM Mon-Fri' sign. The looks I get at home are enough to stop me from - er, wasting the judicial system's time on my own behalf. So I drive more carefully for another year or two. Which benefits the community. If not me or mine. In my view.

WRT to the Adam M edit. I'd have done it some time ago if it looked simple. Why does it need a template? Do you want that a general reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia be inserted, or does the article incorporate text from it? If it corporates PD text from there, it's a rather more time-sensitive issue than just adding it as a reference. It's otherwise quite well-referenced altho most of the article was copied from the 1911 Brit article. But I don't see it as high-priority ( i.e. worth engaging the WP judicial system) either way. Novickas (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly in your rights to have a dissenting opinion, although I'd prefer if you considered

WP:FORGIVE in your interpretation and actions. Otherwise, even in best faith, one can fall into that trap - or cause others to think they had. With regards to wikilawyering, see my essays; in particular this one

. With regards to your driving analogy, as all generalizations go, it is not very appropriate, in particular, because you are driving for yourself, not for the community. Imagine that you received a ticket while driving for the community (delivering free books to poor schoolchildren), and imagine that you did so in the world where traffic police is supposed to be subordinate to the book delivery company and supposed to have the good of the schoolchildren in its mind... :) Of course, that is not to say that you shouldn't have received some for of a warning or a ticket (delivering community goods is not an entitlement for breaking traffic rules), but there is a difference between a 75 bucks ticket and a 1000 buck one, or a suspension, right? Of course, this is also just a generalization one can poke holes with, so I'd suggest we stick to real facts (or just drop this line of discussion, as I feel it will achieve little else but waste our time in polemics).

WRT to AM, I just want to reference note to be in the right section. Eventually that stuff will need to be verified inline, of course, but the first step is having the note in the proper section, not somewhere at the bottom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, all analogies break down somewhere, so now might be a good time to stop. I still don't know what you want re the A.M. article tho. Shall I just insert the Catholic Ency's entry on AM as a general reference? Novickas (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If by insert you mean move it, then yes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Piotr, this is Annie Lin from the Wikimedia Foundation - I work on the Public Policy Initiative as the Campus Team Coordinator, working closely with professors and Campus Ambassadors to encourage the use of Wikipedia as a teaching tool in university settings. Thank you for all your great contributions to the Initiative! I saw on

Thanks for your response. Please let me know when/if CITASA responds! If it helps at all, please let them know that this is an effort that has been picked up by professors at universities across the country (including Harvard, UC Berkeley, Georgetown, Syracuse U, Indiana U, University of Michigan, and many more), and that this has been covered by many major media outlets (including NPR, Chronicles of Higher Education, Newsweek, EduCause, and various local and school newspapers - see http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative under "Media coverage"). Not sure whether that would help at all, but worth a try. I am not currently an official student anywhere, so I probably have even less sway than you do, but I can certainly also poke around my connections. Let's keep each other in the loop about this?

talk

) 02:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI: I discovered that the "Teaching & Learning" section of the ASA is organizing a session titled "Meeting Students Where They Live: Facebook, Twitter, Blogs and Wikis." I've just contacted another member of my team to see if there's any chance we could get a paper of some kind submitted before their deadline, which is coming up very soon. Not sure whether this would work out, but it's worth a try. If you don't mind, I'll also draft a message that you could tweak and send to the CITASA listserv?

talk

) 03:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am PhD student at FUCAM university (Belgium) and I'm working on Wikipedia negociations with narrative approachs. I have the feeling History Flow tool (Viegas) would be useful for me but at this state it is'nt : no possibility to get the full history from articles. I've just seen you worked on this, trying to improve it. Did you get any results? Sorry for my poor english and thanks a lot! IntraLucide (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your information. I did not know Wiki-research Info Page. I'm sure it will help me :-) IntraLucide (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for warning about page merging, I've brought the issue to the attention of the project. --Dans (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

nominate ) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Automatic archiving Do you know an automatic archiver which will leave stuff unarchived at a tag? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC) photo competition Not just 'not many'... no one expressed any interest. And given the fact that getting around Pittsburgh is likely to be a little bit crazy, what with the sports stuff going on, I think we need to scrap the photo competition.  :( I saw your plea for a ride from Oakland, btw. I'm not sure how tight my schedule will be, but I'll give you a ride if I can. I'll email you tomorrow.--ragesoss (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC) B-class reviews Hi Piotrus. I'd be happy to comment on those pages. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Just wanted to let you know that I haven't made any changes at 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash yet. The article is in the middle of a significant expansion (and improvement). I'll review it when it's finished. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Transhuman Hello Piotrus. For many years, there are have been minor disputes about the etymology of the word “transhuman”. The Transhumanist FAQ of the World Transhumanist Association has always argued it goes back to FM-2030 (1966). However, some people dispute this by arguing that it goes to Julian Huxley (1957) or even Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1949). However, correct me if I am wrong, although Huxley and de Chardin used terms likes “transhumanity”, “transhumanism”, and “transhumanizing”, they never explicitly used the word “transhuman”. So my question is: Does coining and defining the words “transhumanity”, “transhumanism”, and “transhumanizing” automatically mean that you have coined and defined the word “transhuman” even when you have never explicitly used that word? I would appreciate any answer you can provide was posted on the Talk:Transhuman page. --Loremaster (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your reply on my talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC) DYK for Variable and attribute (research) DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Pittsburgh Aww you left a few minutes too early. Shell Kinney (mobile) (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC) DYK nomination of Gunnersbury Cemetery Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mjroots (talk ) 08:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC) I said there that I'd raise the issue on your talk page. The issue I have is that all internment are referenced to this webpage. On that page is a link headed 49 famous internments. The 49 are covered by three pages, each of which links to its own page, such as that for Tadeusz Bor-Komorowski. The individual list entries should really be referenced to the individual webpages, rather than being covered by the blanket ref. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Hello, Piotrus. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. The Signpost: 17 January 2011 News and notes: Anniversary celebrations; Foundation reports; local language problems; brief news In the news: Anniversary coverage continues; Thai government translates Wikipedia; brief news Sister projects: Upcoming steward elections, and a retrospective on stewards' work in 2010 WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk ) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010 Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the talk ) 21:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus/Archive_35&oldid=1190137583"