User talk:Piotrus

Reasons for my raising wikistress: Trolls are back :(

Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :)

[edit] Current RfAdminship

Last updated 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) by Tangobot (maintained by Tangotango)

[edit] Promoted Polish culture during World War II

Congratulations and keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemlock Martinis (talk • contribs) 15:27, April 2, 2008

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:1660 Polish Russian War.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:1660 Polish Russian War.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Alfredo Stroessner military.jpg
• Image:303 plane picture.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

[edit] I've nominated the EVE Online category for renaming

Hi, Piotrus. My name's Aexus. Back in June 2006 you created the EVE Online category. To comply with the trademarks guideline of the Wikipedia Manual of Style I have nominated the category to be renamed to its correctly spelled version of Eve Online. Actually the all-capitalized EVE is correct; however, it doesn't comply with the Manual of Style. In Wikipedia's terms it's therefore incorrect. I inform you of the nomination in case you disagree and want to discuss it. You can discuss it on the Categories for discussion page. Below is the according template.

[edit] Pitt WikiProject

As a current or past contributor to a Pitt-related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Pittsburgh and the Pitt Panthers. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~

[edit] Smile!

Halosean 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] History of Poland

Can you take a look at the History of Poland or Prehistory of Poland articles and tell me what's going on there? Orczar (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish witch trials

Hello Piotrus! I am interested in witch trials, and I think every country should be represented in the subject. As for Poland, it's hard to find anything about this on the net. I think it would be most interesting to have a Polish with trial represented here on wikipedia. Most countrys are alredy represented. I have heard about only two cases; two old women burned in 1793, and Barbara Zdunk, executed in 1811. These where mentioned on the net with very few words. Do you have any information about this? I do not know if you are interested in the subject, but as I saw you are interested in historical articles, I thought I should try. I truly would be grateful just for a stub - as they have a tendency to develope if they are just started - or a name to google. I have asked this question on the Poland portal as well. Hopefully--Aciram (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to give me such a long answer! I do think every country should be represtend; one might, to give a coverage of the witch hunt in each country, name: the first and the last case; the biggest case; and the most well known and "famous" case. The difficulty to search the net for this, is the lack of specific words; if you just search on "Witch trials Poland", the chances are small. What you need, to my experience, is for example names on the people involved, or places and years, to get a chance on google....I supose you would need the same to recquest the articles? I should have added that I can't speak Polish, but I will look forward to your future stubs, if you do decide to make them! --Aciram (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a template including witch trials from alla over the Western world. It is inserted in all (?) of the existing witch trial articles here, I think, which is very practical: Template:Witch Hunt. The most developed article is, of course, Salem Witch trials. The others often need to be developed, but it's hard, as much is'nt translated to English, so this have to take a while. Though the witch hunt differed much in Europe, alla countries had them, and all should be represented, I think. Other cases missing are the trials conducted in France by Nicholas Rémy. --Aciram (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6/5 DYK

On 5 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sociology of the Internet, 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.

[edit] Maps

Reason pretty simple: for layout purposes. Both maps essentially convey the same info, but when both present there is a ton of white space, crushed text, etc. I choose GDL map because (a) it is in English, (b) easier to understand (can testify from personal experience), (c) more detailed (more rivers, cities, ect.), (d) more pleasing to the eye, including colors, (e) much easier to see other voivodeships. The way I see it, GDL map is way superior. Renata (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Image:IRPŻmudzkie.PNG is inaccurate. Renata (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Map making error. If you look carefully the line is in place, but a small chunk is not colored in red. I saw your comments. Renata (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)

What in particular do you want me to see?

[edit] History of Poland

This has apparently been fixed for now. Under the Piast section there is a link to "From Fragmentation to Rebirth". The article has been removed, but before it had substance in it and this text was popping up on the top of the History of Poland and Prehistory of Poland articles, some technical problem I guess... Orczar (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Pilecki photo 1947.jpg

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJ^Talk 12:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armia Krajowa Copyedit.

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that I've done some copyediting on Armia Krajowa today. Feel free to check it over & change any of my mistakes. Hope it helps. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 18:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About w:commons:Image:Flaga Rzeczpospolitej Obojga Narodow.svg

• Done! I am waiting for your new photos. Regards. Gustavo (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Dear Piotr,

I was reading with interest the/your article about the Polish magnates interventions in Moldavia, don´t you think this (or something like this) may be a better and clear name? Congratulation for this article.

By the way, I will take profit of this photo of the monastery right now. Gustavo (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Done!

w:commons:Image:Wieniawa CoA in Lezajsk monastery.JPG

w:commons:Image:Pilawa CoA in Lezajsk monastery.JPG

Regards, Gustavo (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Sociology Wikibook

Piotr, glad to have you on board. Please feel free to edit any of the pages in the Wikibook. I'm a bit busy with a few other projects right now, so I haven't been spending much time with Wikibooks, but I hope to later this summer. (Also, I thought my email was enabled. Sorry about that. Should be now.) Best.--Rcragun (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium

The trolls are an issue, but, more fundamentally, I'm finding I don't believe in Wikipedia's models, pillars, or whatever. First, I am an expert in several fields. I am really not interested in tracking down secondary sources for things I know intimately, when I can, after credential verification, simply write on a subject. By all means, challenge for substance, but the model of "encyclopedic" here doesn't match my understanding of how some of the well-regarded paper encyclopedia articles are written: by subject matter experts.

The thing, I believe, that tore it for me was when I asked for peer review on an article, hoping for comment on the substance, and essentially got back nothing but suggestions on how to meet Wikipedia criteria for getting it to higher class, or even featured articles. It struck me that if everything I ever wrote on Wikipedia became a featured article, I would feel no different about my contributions here. It meant something when I published my first book with a reputable publisher, even more when I did a second, proving it was no fluke, and then went off to a different publisher and established I could meet other criteria. In like manner, I've felt good about doing peer-reviewed research. If I got criticism, it was specific and constructive, rather than a drive-by tag of "too long" or "not encyclopedic", with absolutely no specifics on what was wrong.

So far, I haven't missed Wikipedia. I have missed some of the people, including yourself, but, when I look at my WP watchlist, I see not collaboration on articles where I feel I've accomplished something, but vandalism, or demands specialized material "be made simple", or reverting, for it seems the 99th time, material that was deleted by someone that clearly did not understand the subject.

You mentioned impact. I really don't feel I have any on Wikipedia, when there is no qualified review of content. I stopped editing in the Computer Networking Project, about the tenth time someone reverted something I wrote because their textbook said something else -- and I happened to have been involved in the primary research. Recently, I almost went back and reverted a deletion of some technical terms about insurgency, which I stated had no expert-accepted meaning and were basically sound bytes. The anon editor cited a source, which turned out to be a dictionary, rather than any authoritative work in the field.

Why bother? That cycle repeats again and again. I simply don't find the aggravation is worth the few rewards, or that I'm actually accomplishing anything. After 40-plus years of working in electronic collaboration, I find that sort of frustration characteristic of a fully anonymous forum, as distinct from where there may be pseudonyms, but they have been verified.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as a personal article, I would be a little hesitant, although I'd be glad to participate in something with a broader scope. Setting aside readership, CZ has its own problems, one of which is taking what is acknowledged as an easier route by determining people are "editor-qualified" because they have a terminal degree in a discipline -- indeed, a bachelor's degree is currently a requirement to be a "constable", which is similar to, but different from, a WP "administrator."

In my mind, there can be a significant difference between being "educated" and "having gone through a formal academic process". This is especially true of newer fields of learning, and also interdisciplinary fields. For example, the first undergraduate program in computer science, blessed by a professional society, was formed in 1968. When I worked in corporate research at Nortel, my job called for a "doctorate or equivalent", but, at least in my lab, no one had a doctorate in computer science, network engineering, etc. One person had a doctorate in physics. The person with the most peer-reviewed publications was a college dropout.

The disciplined autodidact should be more, not less, common with the kinds of resources available today. When I first did some independent research, it started in high school (microbial biochemistry, specifically of antibiotic resistance). Literature searching was totally manual. Somewhat later, there were bibliographic systems like MEDLINE, with a complex query language, not at all "user-friendly", that would let me do things that I can't do with Google search.

Don't knock the 15-year-old, as I think of my own experience at 15 or 16. I started with a small interesting note in one biochemistry index, and started working out a hypothesis and experiment. At one point, I needed to refer to the Michaelis-Menten equations for competitive inhibition, so I looked them up. Since there was no authority figure to tell me that either I didn't have the background to follow something using partial differential equations, or that I had to go through a specific learning sequence, I pulled down math texts until I could follow -- not derive -- what these equations show.

Disciplined 15-year-olds may be rare, but they exists. In like manner, there are college undergraduates, and even graduate students, that will argue with primary sources, or even the person responsible for the primary source, because their textbook -- wrongly -- disagrees with the point the expert WP contributor wrote. Mind you, I once had an argument with one of my professors, which was only resolved when I convinced him to look at the author list of the document in question, and find me among them. I've had WP "editors" tell me that a reference that I wrote, and went through a peer review process specific to the domain, could not be used to change something on WP.

Publications, perhaps in a somewhat broader context than formal peer review, is one way of assessing competency. When it comes to the CZ concept of "editor", which includes subject matter expertise as well as some diplomatic ability to mentor, I have the silly idea that having written and edited books might show some competence. I also believe, in many disciplines, that demonstrable experience with building domain-specific systems is qualifying.

As you may know, one of my interests is intelligence, in the military and strategic sense. There are several other people at Wikipedia that have subject matter expertise. There are enough nuanced comments to recognize that (1) someone does have the real-world experience and (2) due to security restrictions, cannot source commentary.

I'd be happy to discuss this in email. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon harassment

Anon trolls are hardly a problem. Much worse are fringe and sponsored movements with specific agenda. A ny party representing sophiscated propaganda of a nationalist state or extremist movement(for example revisionists) would prove very destructive to Wikipedia if dedicated enought as they have their own sources and ideologists that could be used; to quote:

If 20-30+ people ever figured out how to smartly work together by the "rules" of Wikipedia, they wouldn't control an article, they would be in position to launch themselves into control of nearly anything. Imagine if Microsoft or Google simply made a WP PR team. 40 editors, all coordinating. Making sure only 30% of their work was on MS or Google related content. Play by the rules, plan, wait, execute. By the time 6-12 months rolled around they could have 20 of 40 or more as admins with no one the wiser. Edit from home IPs. Cake. Next thing you know, they quietly have a consensus lockdown on any article at any time, and can theoretically cross-promote each other via RFA to adminship. Scary. Mivonks 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers...--Molobo (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiu Kajira

A "She" and categorized as "Jap male singers"? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL I did wonder if it was a "she-he" Dana International type -you never know!! Just kidding with you. Keep up the good work translating ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)