![]() | 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. |
Hi! Your bot has been creating redirects to non-existing articles and they are getting nominated for speedy deletion. Will the articles be created or should the redirects be deleted? Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 14:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Polish historical regions. PS. At Template:Administrative division of Poland the red link you removed (to Administrative division of Kingdom of Poland) is now an article, so perhaps you could revert yourself? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I can delete and merge histories; I will do so as soon as you notify me the articles are ready and turn the unneeded one into a redirect.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about this? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I responded to you at Template_talk:Infobox_Settlement#Overlinking. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
... in particular, I was thinking that some of the non-villages articles, such as those on gminas, could maybe also do with having per-county categories, as per-voidodeship is starting to look relatively "coarse-grained", given the sheer number of articles? (BTW, I "request otherwise" on your talk-page -policy -- I dislike missing replies altogether, when they go to a talk page that isn't mine!) Alai ( talk) 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, your reasoning seems pretty sound to me, on further reflection. BTW, I've created templates for all the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship counties: if you have your bot use those for the remaining villages, it'll save a little bit of double-handling. If you're also going to be doing the remaining voivodeships on the same basis, perhaps you could leave a note at WP:WSS/P about the incoming wave of articles? Or else leave a message for me. Thanks. Alai ( talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly right, Xxx-geo-stub, or XxxYyy-geo-stubs, as you say, with no space or additional hyphen. I'm guessing that none of these are ambiguous with other levels of subdivision -- much less subdivisions of other countries -- so that should be about as fancy as we need to get. Alai ( talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. We can go with XxxCounty-geo-stub for those, then. A couple of splits, for example California, use "County-" consistently, but the majority of them skip that. Alai ( talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I really it seems somewhat inconsistent, but in fact both are the 'intended' behaviours. The point is to have templates for every county, but without having categories that wouldn't meet the (minimum) size criteria. So the idea is to have them "upmerged" until they're of suitable size. Once they are (60 articles or more) the corresponding categories can also be created. I thought I'd made templates for all the counties, but I admit I did get a little confused reading the article on same... there's more than one 'type' of county, or something like that? Alai ( talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a file with the tree (with parent-child relationships) for articles with the root as Podlaskie Voivodeship from your Bot? I'd rather not make one if it already exists.
Ajh1492 ( talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for a linked list or data structure with (village-gmina[rural/urban]-powiat-voidvodeship) for each village. Could be extensible to overlay geographical landforms (rivers, lakes, mezoregions, etc.) or other attributes within the boundaries of the given unit.
Would make it a lot easier to maintain the pages automatically.
So kotbot is updating the village page names to be along the lines of [village_name], [county_name ] for example Glinnik, Bielsk County?
It might be better to have them categorized by Gmina. Glinnik, Gmina Brańsk?
Ajh1492 ( talk) 13:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
IMO, you closed this prematurely. No harm in letting the discussion continue, especially since the majority of the citations added in an attempt to expand the article are from 1990 data. -- ZimZalaBim talk 23:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice wording, I think. Tony (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. I was wondering if it would be possible to merge {{ helpbox stackable}} into {{ helpbox}} as a variable, instead of having two separate templates. Both to avoid unnecessary forking, and because it removes the option of having the boxes float next to one another (something that is occasionally desirable when a page has a long thin TableofContents, or on my userpage ( User:Quiddity#navboxen) ;) Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I expect i will remove the tag, wherever our discussion goes, but i'm speculating we can reach a good resolution of the matter short of AfD.
I'm not just quibbling, when i say to you that it is not an inferior fork, but rather the original article and dab, which was abandoned two years ago (in response to surely compelling problems) in favor an ill-conceived fork. That real fork appears to have been the result of either
The history of
Painter having started in 2006 was a provocative puzzle for me, and for other future editors deletion would make it a much more onerous one to solve (and an admins-only one). I expected it to be informative, and in fact it is exquisite evidence that the title must be a Dab rather than an article or Rdr, a question that may yet re-arise.
I viewed every edit in the history of the subpage we're discussing (the former but original
Painter) and of the fork off it presently occupying
Painter, and having done so i'm not sure i could go further (without screaming, and conceivably eventually being driven to assaulting some innocent bystander) by evaluating whether a simple history merge of the two would be too cryptic in the absence of careful talk-page documentation. But i expect the correct ultimate disposition would at least include such a merge.
If i were to tag the two for discussion of merging
Painting/failed article "Painter" into
Painter, and start the discussion, along lines you presumably can infer from this msg, would you feel the matter was moving toward an appropriate resolution?
Thanks for reading this far!
--
Jerzy•
t
22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Your;re making great progress but was the reference access date July 17 in your last batch intentional? SHouldn't it be July 31? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm away for the week. Kotbot is being run by User:Ajh1492; please address any urgent notices (e.g. of malfunctions) to him. Thanks,-- Kotniski ( talk) 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L ( talk) 01:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that Kotbot is creating a great many pages about towns, villages, or hamlets in Poland, apparently sourced only to the corresponding Polish encyclopedia article. In the English Wikipedia a bot some time ago created articles about cities and hamlets based on a U.S. government census database. We know these places exist, because the government did a census of the people who lived there. We have deleted many articles about claimed geographic places or villages because sometimes it is just a street where a developer built a housing development, and is really part of a larger city. In other cases, we have deleted articles about claimed places because they were total hoaxes. The way to prevent this is by complying with the verifiability requirement by citing one or more reliable sources to show there is such a village or town at the claimed place with the claimed name. The US stubs also included population information. The articles Kotbot is creating generally have no reliable source. No Wikipedia is itself a reliable source, because each contains some hoax articles or articles making unverifiable claims. I see no mechanism to go back and delete these bot-created articles if the corresponding article is later deleted from the non-English Wikipedia. "Trust me" is not a substitute for WP:RS and WP:V. Please only create articles having population information and at least one reliable source. It need not be online or in English. I have created a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bot creating unreferenced articles about geographic places. I have left a request at User talk:Ajh1492, your designated botminder, to turn off the bot until consensus is reached at Village Pump on whether creation of stub articles lacking reliable sources should be allowed. Thanks. Edison ( talk) 17:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Addressed out on the Village Pump discussion. Ajh1492 ( talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be really cool if Kotbot could add {{coor title d}} to the pages it creates. « D. Trebbien ( talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: " This article includes information taken from the corresponding Polish Wikipedia article as of 2008-07-17." - Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-31 t11:57z
KotBot is updated to include a reference to GUS. See the discussion on the Village Pump for details. Ajh1492 ( talk) 19:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent work you are doing with the Polish sołectwo articles. Keep it up, and don't let anyone discourage you from this useful work! We have your back. Mr. IP 《 Defender of Open Editing》 09:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to suggest that "having a go at rewriting"] guidelines might be better done on the talk page rather than the main page. I disagree with some of your revision but imho would be better discussed first. Dziekoje. Abtract ( talk) 12:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Witaj! Just a little note for the future. Can you please change your bot, so that the link to Polish Wikipedia article will be under "Notes" section, instead of "References". We (WP users) are not supposed to cite wikipedias, as per our guidelines. Thanks. - Darwinek ( talk) 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
On a similar theme, it would be great if you could change the way your bot adds references to sources in the Polish language, to avoid adding links to dab pages that then have to be fixed manually. For example, this line:
* [http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_655_PLK_HTML.htm Central Statistical Office (GUS) ''Population: Size and Structure by Administrative Division'']<small> - (2007-12-31) (in [[Polish]])</small>
was included as part of the page Mąkoszyn, Łódź Voivodeship it created on 8 August. Because the line reads [[Polish]] rather than [[Polish language|Polish]], the link is created to the disambiguation page Polish rather than directly to the article about the Polish language, and as you can see at our Project page, there's a huge backlog of such dablinks being slowly cleared. If you could amend your bot to write all such links as [[Polish language|Polish]] in future runs, it would be much appreciated. Thanks :) Ka renjc 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kotniski,
Remember when I said there was "no real support for putting the sentence about the Polish Wikipedia in every stub, since the pl interwiki link is sufficient"? The bot is still doing it.
Thanks,
Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 00:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi do you know any editors who would be willing to run the GEOBOT that was approved?. It might not be a bad idea if a few editors with a knowledge of computer programming and bots who could be running it, after all we have a project set up to run it and it seems unfair for us to expect to depend on Mr. Fritz to run it alone. Do you have a knowledge of bots and how we would go about running it for other countries besides Poland? Ideally I had wanted to draw up a detailed world list of settlements with global coordinates in a table as was originally proposed. The Bald One White cat 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
We should reach a consensus on the talk page before further modification to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). A few editors who have participated heavily in the debate claim there is consenssus, when in fact there is not. ( sdsds - talk) 10:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to drop me a line on Gadu-Gadu one of those days! :) My contact info is on my userpage.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Veuillez faire cesser immédiatement la folie de votre robot « Kotbot ».
Budelberger (
talk)
14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC) (
)
May I ask you why did you revert my edits? The IPA pronunciation is completely wrong, I've added some more information. Timpul my talk 10:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
[gajɛvˈniki kɔˈlɔɲa] - my (template) version
[gajev'ɲikʲi kɔ'lɔɲʲa] - your version
The info about belonging to the Sieradz Voivodship is taken from the Polish Wikipedia and for me is also recommended here. Regards, Timpul my talk 10:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Timpul
my talk
10:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Geography Barnstar | |
For creation and operation of the Polish geobot, Kotbot, I am proud to present you with the Geography Barnstar. May your stay on en wiki be long and enjoyable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC) |
I noticed that Polish Wikipedia wound up with a copy of Autumn Goodbye, which was deleted on English Wikipedia as a hoax article. You might want to let someone over there know. Kww ( talk) 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I really dislike how you removed the discussion section that I added to the MoS dates and numbers talk page. Do you have an explanation for this action, besides "removing useless transclusion"? I'd like to understand why you would feel the need to remove that section from the discussion. — OranL ( talk) 16:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
just ec-ed with you @ mosdate with a blank edit, i was talking to ckatz in the summary, if it isn't clear. 86.44.27.255 ( talk) 07:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Because you are a regular, I will not template you, but I think it would be a good idea if you review Wikipedia's policies and guidlelines at WP:3RR and WP:Edit war. As for the edits on Hannah, if you wish to add redundant information, please discuss it on the Talk page rather than repeatedly unilaterally deciding to re-add the same information without discussion. Thank you. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Penny Drake, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 07:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Penny Drake, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny Drake. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 08:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I hacked away at the wording, not to change the meanings you'd created, but to try to find a way of expressing them more simply (possibly a vain attempt). I did as you suggested and filled in a few holes. Please revert or modify as you see fit. It would be nice if only you and I tampered with the wordings and negotiated with others on the basis of their comments. That might prevent chaos. Tony (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was just looking at the code for {{
helpbox}} and {{
helpbox stackable}} again, and the only difference is the "clear:right" style. This is already possible with the normal helpbox (using the {{{1}}} variable): you just need to add |clear:right
to the template when it is needed, eg {{Policy list|clear:right}}. See
my sandbox for demonstration.
I'd like to remove this template fork, if possible, as it seems unnecessary. It seems to be used in only Template:Policy list and Template:Guideline list currently.
Does that make sense, or have I missed anything? (I'm not sure which page's layouts were you trying to fix by creating {{ helpbox stackable}}.) If it makes sense, could you fix the instances that need it, and then {{ db-author}} the template fork (and its docs page)?
Much thanks :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind having a look at my proposal for a preference survey here? We'll get nowhere lumping together a few possible permutations, witness the number of people voting no to anything in the latest tabular incarnation. Three table are required, I think—one for each of the class of article at issue. Tony (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never been so glad to see 540KB go somewhere else. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Long overdue! Perhaps that will freshen people's minds up to move to a decision on this accursed question. I don't care much whether it's engvar or existing or first-major-contributor as the first gate, just that a decision be made. I fear a huge backlash if US editors' work on non-US-related articles is converted to international. Tony (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi I wondered if you could help translate this from polish wikipedia. The Bald One White cat 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It was part of smaller gmina Topczewo in 1939. Gmina Toczewo powiat Bielsk Podlaski, województwo Białostockie to be exact. Now Topczewa was merged in Wyszki. Olszewo likely doesn't exist anymore as half of the people there were already murdered by Germans in 1939 September. Please restore the information. -- Molobo ( talk) 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. If you see any other corrections to be made please do or tell me so. In the meantime, Olszewo has its own entry and the information can be moved there.-- Molobo ( talk) 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: your revert of the informative text describing that dates are being delinked ...
If the date style guide is not the place to let the average Wikipedia editor know what is happening with delinked dates, would you please explain where that place is? Isn't it important to let people know what is happening and try to avoid all of the continued discussion that is taking place? See, for example, this comment "But the style guide does not anywhere call for mass delinking of dates. The bot is making disruptive edits that are not consensus." left on User talk:Lightmouse. Thanks. Truthanado ( talk) 23:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Kotbot#Interwiki.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Dzięki za poprawę wczorajszego tekstu. Niby język angielski nie sprawia mi większych trudności ale nad gramatyką muszę trochę popracować.
Zgodnie z twoją prośbą uzupełniłem część dotyczącą zachodniej Wielkopolski i Pomorza o informacje w jakim czasie była to część Polski i kiedy od niej odpadła.
Co do księstw Śląskich to w latach 1327 - 1329 zostały one zhołdowane przez Jana Luksemburczyka. Po wygaśnięciu danej linii Piastów były one albo nadawane innym władcom (Habsburgowie często nadawali je swoim wierzycielom aby spłacić w ten sposób zaciągnięte u nich długi) albo wcielane bezpośrednio do korony czeskiej.
Cała sprawa jest jednak dosyć skomplikowana, otóż Jan Luksemburczyk pierwotnie zajął te tereny w trakcie swojej wyprawy na Kraków przeciwko Władysławowi Łokietkowi. Nie było jego głównym zamiarem przyłączenie Śląska do Czech ale zdobycie całego królestwa Polskiego gdyż jako następca Przemyślidów (Wacława II i III) uważał się za dziedzica polskiej korony. W 1327, tytułując się Królem Polskim, nadał nawet oficjalnie Zakonowi Krzyżackiemu, zajęte przez nich w 1308, Pomorze. W 1329 zdołał on ponadto zhołdować książąt Mazowieckich. Dopiero w 1335 zawarto układ pomiędzy Kazimierzem Wielkim i Janem Luksemburczykiem na mocy którego za 20 000 kóp groszy praskich Jan zrzekł się tytułu króla Polski.
W 1339 Kazimierz zrzekł się na rzecz Jana Śląska i księstwa Płockiego (część Mazowsza) (które mimo to zostaje włączone do Polski w 1351). Jednak już w 1345 rozpoczyna wojnę o Śląsk. Kończy się ona w 1346 pokojem w Namysłowie. Polska uzyskuje na jego mocy Namysłów i Wschowę. Ponadto biskupstwo Wrocławia wciąż pozostaje w Archidiecezji Gnieźnieńskiej do 1821, a Karol IV w 1360 zobowiązuje się zaprzestać staraniom o przejście tego biskupstwa pod metropolię w Pradze.
Jak widzisz sprawa przynależności politycznej części ziem odzyskanych była jeszcze w XIV wieku nierozstrzygnięta. Oficjalnie zaś każdy król Polski w trakcie swojej koronacji ślubował, że zrobi wszystko co w jego mocy aby odzyskać utracone tereny. Jednakże po wygaśnięciu dynastii Piastów w Krakowie zainteresowanie nowych władców skierowało się głównie na wschód.
Nie wiem jak u ciebie z Polskim, jakbyś nie wszystko był w stanie zrozumieć to napisz a ja Ci te fragmenty przetłumaczę na Angielski. Pozdrawiam Opole.pl ( talk) 10:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Umieszczenie tego wszystkiego spowodowałoby spore zachwianie układu artykułu, zwłaszcza, że to jeszcze nie wszystkie informacje na ten temat. Można by zastanowić się nad stworzeniem nowej jednostki redakcyjnej opisującej inne argumenty wykorzystywane przez władze PRL aby uzasadnić polską obecność na Ziemiach Odzyskanych. Tam można by dać informację o metropolii gnieźnieńskiej, o mniejszości polskiej na Śląsku (na górnym była to większość, na dolnym w XX wieku ograniczała się do rejonów Namysłowa, Milicza i Sycowa) o Maurach (którzy pochodzili z Mazowsza) i Słowińcach.
Ponadto dla uzasadnienia tego stanu używano też teorii "Korony Królestwa Polskiego" - Terminem Korony Królestwa określano często nie tylko ziemie rzeczywiście znajdujące się pod władzą króla polskiego, ale także te do których roszczono sobie prawa, czyli przede wszystkim Śląsk i Pomorze Gdańskie. Do Korony wliczano także stanowiące (pomimo podejmowanych przez lokalnych książąt prób usamodzielnienia się) lenno Polski Mazowsze. por link do plwiki. Co do obietnicy odzyskania utraconych ziem por. np Unia w Krewie 4 akapit unia w krewie. Pozdrawiam Opole.pl ( talk) 11:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kot. Nice work to date with the bot. However can you please alter your bot slightly so it creates articles with the following parameters added to the infoboxes at the top. For example see Chlewice, Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship and how the parameters work in it. Given that there are many photographs in the commons which need putting in the new village articles you;d make life easier for editors who want to add them to the infoboxes by adding this near the top:
| image_skyline=
| imagesize=
| image_caption=
Thanks
The Bald One
White cat
15:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Also. given the problems with WP:Flag and editors who obessively remove them can you alter it from {POL} to {flag icon|Poland} instead so editors can have the choice to hide them in their browser. Thanks The Bald One White cat 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
...for your patient copyediting. Skäpperöd ( talk) 12:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Kot. I'd prefer "rarely" at 1900s too. Neither of the 2 ghits mentioned is a reliable source, and when we say "rarely" in article space, we mean "rarely in reliable sources". - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 12:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
RE your edit summary here:
The passage in WP:SYN was very recently changed here, after which I modified it here and here ... Kenosis ( talk) 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, my comment of 00:05, 3 October 2008 was intended to be with a bit of humor. Having seen the discussion and thought about it, I happen to agree that "refer to" doesn't as squarely capture the essence of the policy as do phrases like "directly related", "in the same context as", "in direct connection", etc. I'm beginning to think participants there have gotten a bit stuck quibbling over a relatively very minor issue, because AFAICT no one has put forward any evidence of a situation where it's been a real issue. ... Kenosis ( talk) 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Kotniski!
You've re-inserted my deletion of the anachronism section on the article of The Bank Job. I couldn't find any guidelines that either supports or disapproves of such sections on Wikipedia, so I've started a new discussion. Care to join in? You'll find it here. Kind regards, -- Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to your comments at Talk:2000s. Unschool ( talk) 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain your role, if any, in loosing the robots on wikidates? Are you merely claiming it was justified, without playing an active role in loosing the robots? Geo Swan ( talk) 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
See here. As you removed that bit of text, I'm asking you first (to get your opinion over there) before I tell the others in that discussion about this. Hopefully they will all pop back and see what I added, though. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't check at the moment, but I think Decadebox BC needs to be -1-{{{1}}}, because 0s BC is not 0s AD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
As you have restored the inherently POV section to the Justine Henin article, I would ask you to discuss this on the article's talk page. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I've reduced the protection to semi, as you requested here. Please let me know when you've completed your changes, or request the full protection be restored at RFPP. Regards, لenna vecia 03:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Kotniski—you may be interested to know that this flared up from Lightmouse's talk page. Tony (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Now fancy you, with a user-name like that, watchlisting "Silesia". Yes, it's just come up on Lightmouse's page and MOS talk; I don't know why it hasn't been noticed before. I'm just about to go to bed, so could you revert if necessary? Lightmouse is surely fixing it as a priority, and I'll watch for it until this function is disabled. (I've learnt something about categories through this.) Sorry for the trouble. Tony (talk)
Hi I have just "rebuilt" the Silesian Piasts article. Could you take a look and correct my spelling and grammar errors. Of course if you have some additonal data you can add some new info. Z góry dziękuję i pozdrawiam Opole.pl ( talk) 09:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, now we can honestly say that it is written in English. Pozdrawiam Opole.pl ( talk) 17:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Regrettably I have come to inform you, that this bot project will not go into operation and therefore the project will be closing down. Thanks everybody for their time and support but there is a clear reason why it failed. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you're watching my page, but if you want to add the brackets to IPA-pl, I'll AWB all the articles it transcludes to and remove any extraneous brackets. kwami ( talk) 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I noted and appreciated your c/e at the Ostsiedlung article. I was not all happy with "rural development" either, but I don't think "consolidation" is more close. "Ausbau" means that you do not create sth completely new, but improve/extend/enlarge/develop a given structure. "Land" is either soil, countryside, area or political entity. I found it hard to put this into a short, comprehensive English term. I will ask at the German-speaking wikipedians' board for a proper translation, maybe a corresponding English term exists. Skäpperöd ( talk) 17:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed for the last several weeks you have been edit warring at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and we operate under the principle of discussing changes to reach consensus. None of us own any of the pages on Wikipedia and edit warring, even if one is certain they are correct, is never acceptable. I fear if you do not stop edit warring that I will need to block you for disruption and edit warring. MBisanz talk 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Kotniski. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Review. Thank you. MBisanz talk 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Kotniski, I just realized that people aren't using the Horse infobox template on the main page, they are mostly cutting and pasting the simpler syntax that appears on the talk page. So, the template may not actually be updating at all. Don't fret, we only have 350 horse breed articles like this, not all have the infobox...! Montanabw (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Just ignore User:Locke Cole. He doesn't want to play by anyone's rules except his own, so it makes no sense to play with him. He's been edit warring on a number of articles, and is now threatening to take a bunch of us to arbitration for de-linking article dates just because he disagrees and can't hold back the tide of delinking. I'm just waiting for him to be blocked per WP:3RR Ohconfucius ( talk) 08:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 12 hours for
edit warring on
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). On November 12
you were warned for edit warring on one of those pages, and
you acknowledged that warning. Unfortunately, you continued today with further reverts. Please review
WP:EDITWAR during your block. If you wish to contest it, please place {{
unblock|your reason here}}
on this page.
Given you have never been blocked, your block will only last 12 hours. I trust that you will pursue dispute resolution in the future rather than edit war. Regards, - Rjd0060 ( talk) 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't care which of you two is right, however another revert or close will cause me to block you for disruption. Please stop now. —— nix eagle 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Being right does not justify disruptive actions. Even though you were right (its a procedural keep, we don't hold deletion discussions on policies and in this case, a guideline), reverting is not the proper way to handle it. Discussion should begin before its reclosed ( words to think on). And as such, Nixeagle is not worried about who is right or wrong in this situation, he only wants the disruption to end. Don't drag things on to justify your edits. Just relax and take a deep breath. It will all be resolved with discussion (as it appears to be drawing to a close). :) Syn ergy 20:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to justify this edit to me please.
As many users are claiming MOSNUM as justification for the controversial practice of removing date links with bots. It seems only correct to note that it is noted that this practice has no consensus and is not formally endorsed by MOSNUM.
So would you like to explain you reasons for removing my edit? G-Man ? 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to direct me to the appropriate page to raise this issue. G-Man ? 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kotniski!
My name is Zivan Stevanovic, it's surely known to you from recent changes I'we made to etimology and explanation of word Marshal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal , which you removed several time as incorrect.
How you find your claim correct?
Becouse eminent resources such as Britanicca, merriam-webster, Online Etymology Dictionary have exact same explanation?
-Online Etymology Dictionary:
-1218, from O.Fr. mareschal, originally "stable officer, horse tender, groom" (Frankish L. mariscaluis) from Frank. *marhskalk, lit. "horse-servant" (cf. O.H.G. marahscalc "groom"), from P.Gmc. *markhaz "horse" (see mare (1)) + *skalkaz "servant" (cf. Du. schalk "rogue, wag," Goth. skalks "servant"). Cognate with O.E. horsþegn. For development history, cf. constable. The verb "to arrange for fighting" is from 1587.
-Merriam-Webster:
-Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French mareschal, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German marahscalc marshal, from marah horse + scalc servant
-Britannica:
- The rank evolved from the title of marescalci (masters of the horse) of the early Frankish kings. The importance of cavalry in medieval warfare led to the marshalship being associated with a command position; this rank came to include the duties of keeping order at court and in camp and of deciding questions of chivalry.
With due respect I read it and they don't make sense to me!
Doesn't that word have root way behind 11th cetury?
Why is world Martial unincluded, becouse is homophonic with Marshal?
I just want you to think of my correction with common sense.
Is it suitable meaning for highest military rank, which is appointed only in war - "stable servant"?
Or is it martial which mean, as I sead Warlike,which etymology is from Latin martialis of Mars (Roman god of war)?
Thanks in advance for reading this and taking it seriously!
Zivan Stevanovic ( talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Kotniksi, thank you for being tidy and cleaning up the discussion page. When moving a thread to a different page, it would be most useful if you could leave a note in either the page itself, the edit summary (or both) stating where the thread had been moved to. I'm not sure about the other thread that was in-progress ten hours ago... perhaps I can copy and paste the last dozen points from there and let it carry on. Once again, thank you for helping keep the page size down. — Sladen ( talk) 11:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
For wishes and best wishes to you as well. -- Molobo ( talk) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Kotniski! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One White cat 11:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
As the primary creator of the new yearbox etc. series of templates, could you please list them and request full protection. (If you prefer not to use WP:RFPP, due to the potential for vandalism, I'll understand, but please let me know, preferably by E-mail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Some discussion has recently re-continued here. Since you were once part of it, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my newest proposal. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 19:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia ( talk) 18:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you were still interested in running you rbot to add the remaining French commune infoboxes as posted on MJCdetroits page? The Bald One White cat 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
We can still use the redirect. Maybe a dull comment should suffice? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi K. I have retired from active service at the MOSpages, for now anyway. But I am delighted to see that you are involved in rational merging of disparate portions. It's a big task. Well done! Meanwhile, there doesn't seem to much useful action at WT:MOS itself. Recent changes to the guidelines for possessives are uninspired and puerile. Someone will pick it up, I trust. And the {{ xt}} markup is only partially implemented. I think that initiative was poorly managed, myself. Can't be helped though, in a direct democracy.
Best wishes, and keep up the very worthwhile work!
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 11:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
First, thanks for taking those pages and merging them down in to one simpler page. Second, I'm sorry for the trouble that seems to have resulted from my changes with the one sentence and two words. I really didn't expect Tony to react as he has. Hopefully this can be resolved without the merge being reversed over these (to me) trivial changes. — Locke Cole • t • c 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you given further thought to standing up for adminship? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I liked you proposal; it's a shame it won't be implemented-- DFS454 ( talk) 15:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Tchaikovsky's father was Ukrainian, so there is some logic in listing the composer. The only solution is to define, who should be included in the article. Xx236 ( talk) 10:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
At a recent AfD discusion, you argued in favor of keeping a Kanjivellam -- the Malayam word for gruel made with water and rice -- a separate article from Gruel. Articles must demonstrate notability (which I think this one has not) and be based on reliable sources. So far, the only "reliable sources" that have been found are a history of a religious community, which mentions it once in passing, and a press release from an Indian charity which mentions it as an example of a food they feed to sick children.
If you have further reliable sources, or other information about how this article can be developed without simply redirecting it to Gruel, please leave a message at Talk:Kanjivellam. Thanks for your help, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you proficient in Spanish ? How do you know those who shot Feldhandler were "anti-Semitic" ? Is there a description of their state of mind anywhere in the sources cited ? Maybe they did not allow UB and NKVD collaborants ? If you read and write Polish, read Polish version of Feldhandler article, put some effort into bringing English version closer to reality.
Poles tend to be anti-British lately, you know why, all these drunk, half-naked rednecks. Am I ? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.193.129.125 ( talk) 12:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you be able to help improve navigation among horse breed articles? See Template talk:Equine. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
...till Kotbot is done? Out of curiosity :) PS. DK4 ( talk · contribs) seems to have started doing something similar to Kotbot, judging by new articles reports (creates long series of stubs of Polish villages). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Kotniski. Thanks for your kind words -- although the issue turns out to be more complicated than that. Would you care to participate in the current discussion of sources at Talk:Leon Feldhendler. Once a consensus has been reached, I (or any willing party) can make the appropriate changes to Sobibor as well. Cheers! -- Rrburke( talk) 19:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You've been mentioned on Wikiquette alerts for edit warring to hide dispute [4]. Oicumayberight ( talk) 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Per this discussion, what do you think of my idea to limit policies to WP:3RR and its exemptions? I've been thinking that maybe a new classification should be created for NPOV, V, and OR. In practice they are not exactly policies. I also think that WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVIL should be demoted to behavioral guidelines, simply because what constitutes a violation is often unclear. Perhaps we could go through them and figure out what is truly non-negotiable and make that into a single policy. PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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.-- ragesoss ( talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Your improvements to the guideline are great. Sorry to have been such a stubborn mule about the lists, but ultimately I think having two lists is unnecessarily confusing to the users of this page, even if I appreciate the logic of why you proposed the split in the first place. In retrospect, though, you were right about not organizing it by continent. But I'm actually posting here to get a handle on your edit summary that read "in these countries tags are used even if *disambiguation* is not required". I don't disagree with your subsequent edit to that sentence (I was really just trying to get rid of the awkward sentence structure that predated your recent spate of edits), but I'm puzzled about the distinction you are making between tags and disambiguation. What tags? I could just be missing the obvious here, but I'm not following your logic so I thoughT I would ask (mostly out of curiosity). Regards. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank-you very-much! I would-never-have been able-to manage-that code... Bencherlite Talk 13:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Polish barnstar | |
For craeting so many thousands of articles on polish villages.
02blythed (
talk)
21:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Well done on your work on poland. You are doing brillaint work that would never be created otherwise. I just came across you while seeing the poland articles you have created. You therefore deserve this barnstar. |
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 07:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I see you have an interest in Konik. A whole bunch of articles related to that one have been getting a lot of work lately, including Tarpan aka Wild horse. Take a look? -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kotniski: Can you deal with this? Tony (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Kotniski, you seem confused. I'm not the only one undoing this portion of the merge, Kendrick7 initiated it. Now again, I ask you to revert yourself and join the discussion on the talk page (which you blanked, removing Kendrick7's comment). — Locke Cole • t • c 08:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kotniski, I fixed what are think were typos in your comment, I am not a native speaker so please check: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style_(links)&diff=271547636&oldid=271546798 Cheers Nicolas1981 ( talk) 10:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I really like your template {{ Catdesc}}. But it is a very complicated template for a novice to use. If you have time, could you please write a documentation page for it? Thanks. -- Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 03:08, 21 February 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. |
Hi! Your bot has been creating redirects to non-existing articles and they are getting nominated for speedy deletion. Will the articles be created or should the redirects be deleted? Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 14:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Polish historical regions. PS. At Template:Administrative division of Poland the red link you removed (to Administrative division of Kingdom of Poland) is now an article, so perhaps you could revert yourself? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I can delete and merge histories; I will do so as soon as you notify me the articles are ready and turn the unneeded one into a redirect.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about this? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I responded to you at Template_talk:Infobox_Settlement#Overlinking. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
... in particular, I was thinking that some of the non-villages articles, such as those on gminas, could maybe also do with having per-county categories, as per-voidodeship is starting to look relatively "coarse-grained", given the sheer number of articles? (BTW, I "request otherwise" on your talk-page -policy -- I dislike missing replies altogether, when they go to a talk page that isn't mine!) Alai ( talk) 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, your reasoning seems pretty sound to me, on further reflection. BTW, I've created templates for all the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship counties: if you have your bot use those for the remaining villages, it'll save a little bit of double-handling. If you're also going to be doing the remaining voivodeships on the same basis, perhaps you could leave a note at WP:WSS/P about the incoming wave of articles? Or else leave a message for me. Thanks. Alai ( talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly right, Xxx-geo-stub, or XxxYyy-geo-stubs, as you say, with no space or additional hyphen. I'm guessing that none of these are ambiguous with other levels of subdivision -- much less subdivisions of other countries -- so that should be about as fancy as we need to get. Alai ( talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. We can go with XxxCounty-geo-stub for those, then. A couple of splits, for example California, use "County-" consistently, but the majority of them skip that. Alai ( talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I really it seems somewhat inconsistent, but in fact both are the 'intended' behaviours. The point is to have templates for every county, but without having categories that wouldn't meet the (minimum) size criteria. So the idea is to have them "upmerged" until they're of suitable size. Once they are (60 articles or more) the corresponding categories can also be created. I thought I'd made templates for all the counties, but I admit I did get a little confused reading the article on same... there's more than one 'type' of county, or something like that? Alai ( talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a file with the tree (with parent-child relationships) for articles with the root as Podlaskie Voivodeship from your Bot? I'd rather not make one if it already exists.
Ajh1492 ( talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for a linked list or data structure with (village-gmina[rural/urban]-powiat-voidvodeship) for each village. Could be extensible to overlay geographical landforms (rivers, lakes, mezoregions, etc.) or other attributes within the boundaries of the given unit.
Would make it a lot easier to maintain the pages automatically.
So kotbot is updating the village page names to be along the lines of [village_name], [county_name ] for example Glinnik, Bielsk County?
It might be better to have them categorized by Gmina. Glinnik, Gmina Brańsk?
Ajh1492 ( talk) 13:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
IMO, you closed this prematurely. No harm in letting the discussion continue, especially since the majority of the citations added in an attempt to expand the article are from 1990 data. -- ZimZalaBim talk 23:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice wording, I think. Tony (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. I was wondering if it would be possible to merge {{ helpbox stackable}} into {{ helpbox}} as a variable, instead of having two separate templates. Both to avoid unnecessary forking, and because it removes the option of having the boxes float next to one another (something that is occasionally desirable when a page has a long thin TableofContents, or on my userpage ( User:Quiddity#navboxen) ;) Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I expect i will remove the tag, wherever our discussion goes, but i'm speculating we can reach a good resolution of the matter short of AfD.
I'm not just quibbling, when i say to you that it is not an inferior fork, but rather the original article and dab, which was abandoned two years ago (in response to surely compelling problems) in favor an ill-conceived fork. That real fork appears to have been the result of either
The history of
Painter having started in 2006 was a provocative puzzle for me, and for other future editors deletion would make it a much more onerous one to solve (and an admins-only one). I expected it to be informative, and in fact it is exquisite evidence that the title must be a Dab rather than an article or Rdr, a question that may yet re-arise.
I viewed every edit in the history of the subpage we're discussing (the former but original
Painter) and of the fork off it presently occupying
Painter, and having done so i'm not sure i could go further (without screaming, and conceivably eventually being driven to assaulting some innocent bystander) by evaluating whether a simple history merge of the two would be too cryptic in the absence of careful talk-page documentation. But i expect the correct ultimate disposition would at least include such a merge.
If i were to tag the two for discussion of merging
Painting/failed article "Painter" into
Painter, and start the discussion, along lines you presumably can infer from this msg, would you feel the matter was moving toward an appropriate resolution?
Thanks for reading this far!
--
Jerzy•
t
22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Your;re making great progress but was the reference access date July 17 in your last batch intentional? SHouldn't it be July 31? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm away for the week. Kotbot is being run by User:Ajh1492; please address any urgent notices (e.g. of malfunctions) to him. Thanks,-- Kotniski ( talk) 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L ( talk) 01:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that Kotbot is creating a great many pages about towns, villages, or hamlets in Poland, apparently sourced only to the corresponding Polish encyclopedia article. In the English Wikipedia a bot some time ago created articles about cities and hamlets based on a U.S. government census database. We know these places exist, because the government did a census of the people who lived there. We have deleted many articles about claimed geographic places or villages because sometimes it is just a street where a developer built a housing development, and is really part of a larger city. In other cases, we have deleted articles about claimed places because they were total hoaxes. The way to prevent this is by complying with the verifiability requirement by citing one or more reliable sources to show there is such a village or town at the claimed place with the claimed name. The US stubs also included population information. The articles Kotbot is creating generally have no reliable source. No Wikipedia is itself a reliable source, because each contains some hoax articles or articles making unverifiable claims. I see no mechanism to go back and delete these bot-created articles if the corresponding article is later deleted from the non-English Wikipedia. "Trust me" is not a substitute for WP:RS and WP:V. Please only create articles having population information and at least one reliable source. It need not be online or in English. I have created a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bot creating unreferenced articles about geographic places. I have left a request at User talk:Ajh1492, your designated botminder, to turn off the bot until consensus is reached at Village Pump on whether creation of stub articles lacking reliable sources should be allowed. Thanks. Edison ( talk) 17:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Addressed out on the Village Pump discussion. Ajh1492 ( talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be really cool if Kotbot could add {{coor title d}} to the pages it creates. « D. Trebbien ( talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: " This article includes information taken from the corresponding Polish Wikipedia article as of 2008-07-17." - Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-31 t11:57z
KotBot is updated to include a reference to GUS. See the discussion on the Village Pump for details. Ajh1492 ( talk) 19:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent work you are doing with the Polish sołectwo articles. Keep it up, and don't let anyone discourage you from this useful work! We have your back. Mr. IP 《 Defender of Open Editing》 09:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to suggest that "having a go at rewriting"] guidelines might be better done on the talk page rather than the main page. I disagree with some of your revision but imho would be better discussed first. Dziekoje. Abtract ( talk) 12:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Witaj! Just a little note for the future. Can you please change your bot, so that the link to Polish Wikipedia article will be under "Notes" section, instead of "References". We (WP users) are not supposed to cite wikipedias, as per our guidelines. Thanks. - Darwinek ( talk) 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
On a similar theme, it would be great if you could change the way your bot adds references to sources in the Polish language, to avoid adding links to dab pages that then have to be fixed manually. For example, this line:
* [http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_655_PLK_HTML.htm Central Statistical Office (GUS) ''Population: Size and Structure by Administrative Division'']<small> - (2007-12-31) (in [[Polish]])</small>
was included as part of the page Mąkoszyn, Łódź Voivodeship it created on 8 August. Because the line reads [[Polish]] rather than [[Polish language|Polish]], the link is created to the disambiguation page Polish rather than directly to the article about the Polish language, and as you can see at our Project page, there's a huge backlog of such dablinks being slowly cleared. If you could amend your bot to write all such links as [[Polish language|Polish]] in future runs, it would be much appreciated. Thanks :) Ka renjc 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kotniski,
Remember when I said there was "no real support for putting the sentence about the Polish Wikipedia in every stub, since the pl interwiki link is sufficient"? The bot is still doing it.
Thanks,
Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 00:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi do you know any editors who would be willing to run the GEOBOT that was approved?. It might not be a bad idea if a few editors with a knowledge of computer programming and bots who could be running it, after all we have a project set up to run it and it seems unfair for us to expect to depend on Mr. Fritz to run it alone. Do you have a knowledge of bots and how we would go about running it for other countries besides Poland? Ideally I had wanted to draw up a detailed world list of settlements with global coordinates in a table as was originally proposed. The Bald One White cat 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
We should reach a consensus on the talk page before further modification to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). A few editors who have participated heavily in the debate claim there is consenssus, when in fact there is not. ( sdsds - talk) 10:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to drop me a line on Gadu-Gadu one of those days! :) My contact info is on my userpage.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Veuillez faire cesser immédiatement la folie de votre robot « Kotbot ».
Budelberger (
talk)
14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC) (
)
May I ask you why did you revert my edits? The IPA pronunciation is completely wrong, I've added some more information. Timpul my talk 10:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
[gajɛvˈniki kɔˈlɔɲa] - my (template) version
[gajev'ɲikʲi kɔ'lɔɲʲa] - your version
The info about belonging to the Sieradz Voivodship is taken from the Polish Wikipedia and for me is also recommended here. Regards, Timpul my talk 10:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Timpul
my talk
10:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Geography Barnstar | |
For creation and operation of the Polish geobot, Kotbot, I am proud to present you with the Geography Barnstar. May your stay on en wiki be long and enjoyable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC) |
I noticed that Polish Wikipedia wound up with a copy of Autumn Goodbye, which was deleted on English Wikipedia as a hoax article. You might want to let someone over there know. Kww ( talk) 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I really dislike how you removed the discussion section that I added to the MoS dates and numbers talk page. Do you have an explanation for this action, besides "removing useless transclusion"? I'd like to understand why you would feel the need to remove that section from the discussion. — OranL ( talk) 16:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
just ec-ed with you @ mosdate with a blank edit, i was talking to ckatz in the summary, if it isn't clear. 86.44.27.255 ( talk) 07:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Because you are a regular, I will not template you, but I think it would be a good idea if you review Wikipedia's policies and guidlelines at WP:3RR and WP:Edit war. As for the edits on Hannah, if you wish to add redundant information, please discuss it on the Talk page rather than repeatedly unilaterally deciding to re-add the same information without discussion. Thank you. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Penny Drake, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 07:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Penny Drake, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny Drake. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 08:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I hacked away at the wording, not to change the meanings you'd created, but to try to find a way of expressing them more simply (possibly a vain attempt). I did as you suggested and filled in a few holes. Please revert or modify as you see fit. It would be nice if only you and I tampered with the wordings and negotiated with others on the basis of their comments. That might prevent chaos. Tony (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was just looking at the code for {{
helpbox}} and {{
helpbox stackable}} again, and the only difference is the "clear:right" style. This is already possible with the normal helpbox (using the {{{1}}} variable): you just need to add |clear:right
to the template when it is needed, eg {{Policy list|clear:right}}. See
my sandbox for demonstration.
I'd like to remove this template fork, if possible, as it seems unnecessary. It seems to be used in only Template:Policy list and Template:Guideline list currently.
Does that make sense, or have I missed anything? (I'm not sure which page's layouts were you trying to fix by creating {{ helpbox stackable}}.) If it makes sense, could you fix the instances that need it, and then {{ db-author}} the template fork (and its docs page)?
Much thanks :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind having a look at my proposal for a preference survey here? We'll get nowhere lumping together a few possible permutations, witness the number of people voting no to anything in the latest tabular incarnation. Three table are required, I think—one for each of the class of article at issue. Tony (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never been so glad to see 540KB go somewhere else. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Long overdue! Perhaps that will freshen people's minds up to move to a decision on this accursed question. I don't care much whether it's engvar or existing or first-major-contributor as the first gate, just that a decision be made. I fear a huge backlash if US editors' work on non-US-related articles is converted to international. Tony (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi I wondered if you could help translate this from polish wikipedia. The Bald One White cat 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It was part of smaller gmina Topczewo in 1939. Gmina Toczewo powiat Bielsk Podlaski, województwo Białostockie to be exact. Now Topczewa was merged in Wyszki. Olszewo likely doesn't exist anymore as half of the people there were already murdered by Germans in 1939 September. Please restore the information. -- Molobo ( talk) 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. If you see any other corrections to be made please do or tell me so. In the meantime, Olszewo has its own entry and the information can be moved there.-- Molobo ( talk) 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: your revert of the informative text describing that dates are being delinked ...
If the date style guide is not the place to let the average Wikipedia editor know what is happening with delinked dates, would you please explain where that place is? Isn't it important to let people know what is happening and try to avoid all of the continued discussion that is taking place? See, for example, this comment "But the style guide does not anywhere call for mass delinking of dates. The bot is making disruptive edits that are not consensus." left on User talk:Lightmouse. Thanks. Truthanado ( talk) 23:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Kotbot#Interwiki.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Dzięki za poprawę wczorajszego tekstu. Niby język angielski nie sprawia mi większych trudności ale nad gramatyką muszę trochę popracować.
Zgodnie z twoją prośbą uzupełniłem część dotyczącą zachodniej Wielkopolski i Pomorza o informacje w jakim czasie była to część Polski i kiedy od niej odpadła.
Co do księstw Śląskich to w latach 1327 - 1329 zostały one zhołdowane przez Jana Luksemburczyka. Po wygaśnięciu danej linii Piastów były one albo nadawane innym władcom (Habsburgowie często nadawali je swoim wierzycielom aby spłacić w ten sposób zaciągnięte u nich długi) albo wcielane bezpośrednio do korony czeskiej.
Cała sprawa jest jednak dosyć skomplikowana, otóż Jan Luksemburczyk pierwotnie zajął te tereny w trakcie swojej wyprawy na Kraków przeciwko Władysławowi Łokietkowi. Nie było jego głównym zamiarem przyłączenie Śląska do Czech ale zdobycie całego królestwa Polskiego gdyż jako następca Przemyślidów (Wacława II i III) uważał się za dziedzica polskiej korony. W 1327, tytułując się Królem Polskim, nadał nawet oficjalnie Zakonowi Krzyżackiemu, zajęte przez nich w 1308, Pomorze. W 1329 zdołał on ponadto zhołdować książąt Mazowieckich. Dopiero w 1335 zawarto układ pomiędzy Kazimierzem Wielkim i Janem Luksemburczykiem na mocy którego za 20 000 kóp groszy praskich Jan zrzekł się tytułu króla Polski.
W 1339 Kazimierz zrzekł się na rzecz Jana Śląska i księstwa Płockiego (część Mazowsza) (które mimo to zostaje włączone do Polski w 1351). Jednak już w 1345 rozpoczyna wojnę o Śląsk. Kończy się ona w 1346 pokojem w Namysłowie. Polska uzyskuje na jego mocy Namysłów i Wschowę. Ponadto biskupstwo Wrocławia wciąż pozostaje w Archidiecezji Gnieźnieńskiej do 1821, a Karol IV w 1360 zobowiązuje się zaprzestać staraniom o przejście tego biskupstwa pod metropolię w Pradze.
Jak widzisz sprawa przynależności politycznej części ziem odzyskanych była jeszcze w XIV wieku nierozstrzygnięta. Oficjalnie zaś każdy król Polski w trakcie swojej koronacji ślubował, że zrobi wszystko co w jego mocy aby odzyskać utracone tereny. Jednakże po wygaśnięciu dynastii Piastów w Krakowie zainteresowanie nowych władców skierowało się głównie na wschód.
Nie wiem jak u ciebie z Polskim, jakbyś nie wszystko był w stanie zrozumieć to napisz a ja Ci te fragmenty przetłumaczę na Angielski. Pozdrawiam Opole.pl ( talk) 10:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Umieszczenie tego wszystkiego spowodowałoby spore zachwianie układu artykułu, zwłaszcza, że to jeszcze nie wszystkie informacje na ten temat. Można by zastanowić się nad stworzeniem nowej jednostki redakcyjnej opisującej inne argumenty wykorzystywane przez władze PRL aby uzasadnić polską obecność na Ziemiach Odzyskanych. Tam można by dać informację o metropolii gnieźnieńskiej, o mniejszości polskiej na Śląsku (na górnym była to większość, na dolnym w XX wieku ograniczała się do rejonów Namysłowa, Milicza i Sycowa) o Maurach (którzy pochodzili z Mazowsza) i Słowińcach.
Ponadto dla uzasadnienia tego stanu używano też teorii "Korony Królestwa Polskiego" - Terminem Korony Królestwa określano często nie tylko ziemie rzeczywiście znajdujące się pod władzą króla polskiego, ale także te do których roszczono sobie prawa, czyli przede wszystkim Śląsk i Pomorze Gdańskie. Do Korony wliczano także stanowiące (pomimo podejmowanych przez lokalnych książąt prób usamodzielnienia się) lenno Polski Mazowsze. por link do plwiki. Co do obietnicy odzyskania utraconych ziem por. np Unia w Krewie 4 akapit unia w krewie. Pozdrawiam Opole.pl ( talk) 11:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kot. Nice work to date with the bot. However can you please alter your bot slightly so it creates articles with the following parameters added to the infoboxes at the top. For example see Chlewice, Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship and how the parameters work in it. Given that there are many photographs in the commons which need putting in the new village articles you;d make life easier for editors who want to add them to the infoboxes by adding this near the top:
| image_skyline=
| imagesize=
| image_caption=
Thanks
The Bald One
White cat
15:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Also. given the problems with WP:Flag and editors who obessively remove them can you alter it from {POL} to {flag icon|Poland} instead so editors can have the choice to hide them in their browser. Thanks The Bald One White cat 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
...for your patient copyediting. Skäpperöd ( talk) 12:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Kot. I'd prefer "rarely" at 1900s too. Neither of the 2 ghits mentioned is a reliable source, and when we say "rarely" in article space, we mean "rarely in reliable sources". - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 12:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
RE your edit summary here:
The passage in WP:SYN was very recently changed here, after which I modified it here and here ... Kenosis ( talk) 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, my comment of 00:05, 3 October 2008 was intended to be with a bit of humor. Having seen the discussion and thought about it, I happen to agree that "refer to" doesn't as squarely capture the essence of the policy as do phrases like "directly related", "in the same context as", "in direct connection", etc. I'm beginning to think participants there have gotten a bit stuck quibbling over a relatively very minor issue, because AFAICT no one has put forward any evidence of a situation where it's been a real issue. ... Kenosis ( talk) 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Kotniski!
You've re-inserted my deletion of the anachronism section on the article of The Bank Job. I couldn't find any guidelines that either supports or disapproves of such sections on Wikipedia, so I've started a new discussion. Care to join in? You'll find it here. Kind regards, -- Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to your comments at Talk:2000s. Unschool ( talk) 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain your role, if any, in loosing the robots on wikidates? Are you merely claiming it was justified, without playing an active role in loosing the robots? Geo Swan ( talk) 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
See here. As you removed that bit of text, I'm asking you first (to get your opinion over there) before I tell the others in that discussion about this. Hopefully they will all pop back and see what I added, though. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't check at the moment, but I think Decadebox BC needs to be -1-{{{1}}}, because 0s BC is not 0s AD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
As you have restored the inherently POV section to the Justine Henin article, I would ask you to discuss this on the article's talk page. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I've reduced the protection to semi, as you requested here. Please let me know when you've completed your changes, or request the full protection be restored at RFPP. Regards, لenna vecia 03:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Kotniski—you may be interested to know that this flared up from Lightmouse's talk page. Tony (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Now fancy you, with a user-name like that, watchlisting "Silesia". Yes, it's just come up on Lightmouse's page and MOS talk; I don't know why it hasn't been noticed before. I'm just about to go to bed, so could you revert if necessary? Lightmouse is surely fixing it as a priority, and I'll watch for it until this function is disabled. (I've learnt something about categories through this.) Sorry for the trouble. Tony (talk)
Hi I have just "rebuilt" the Silesian Piasts article. Could you take a look and correct my spelling and grammar errors. Of course if you have some additonal data you can add some new info. Z góry dziękuję i pozdrawiam Opole.pl ( talk) 09:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, now we can honestly say that it is written in English. Pozdrawiam Opole.pl ( talk) 17:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Regrettably I have come to inform you, that this bot project will not go into operation and therefore the project will be closing down. Thanks everybody for their time and support but there is a clear reason why it failed. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you're watching my page, but if you want to add the brackets to IPA-pl, I'll AWB all the articles it transcludes to and remove any extraneous brackets. kwami ( talk) 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I noted and appreciated your c/e at the Ostsiedlung article. I was not all happy with "rural development" either, but I don't think "consolidation" is more close. "Ausbau" means that you do not create sth completely new, but improve/extend/enlarge/develop a given structure. "Land" is either soil, countryside, area or political entity. I found it hard to put this into a short, comprehensive English term. I will ask at the German-speaking wikipedians' board for a proper translation, maybe a corresponding English term exists. Skäpperöd ( talk) 17:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed for the last several weeks you have been edit warring at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and we operate under the principle of discussing changes to reach consensus. None of us own any of the pages on Wikipedia and edit warring, even if one is certain they are correct, is never acceptable. I fear if you do not stop edit warring that I will need to block you for disruption and edit warring. MBisanz talk 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Kotniski. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Review. Thank you. MBisanz talk 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Kotniski, I just realized that people aren't using the Horse infobox template on the main page, they are mostly cutting and pasting the simpler syntax that appears on the talk page. So, the template may not actually be updating at all. Don't fret, we only have 350 horse breed articles like this, not all have the infobox...! Montanabw (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Just ignore User:Locke Cole. He doesn't want to play by anyone's rules except his own, so it makes no sense to play with him. He's been edit warring on a number of articles, and is now threatening to take a bunch of us to arbitration for de-linking article dates just because he disagrees and can't hold back the tide of delinking. I'm just waiting for him to be blocked per WP:3RR Ohconfucius ( talk) 08:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 12 hours for
edit warring on
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). On November 12
you were warned for edit warring on one of those pages, and
you acknowledged that warning. Unfortunately, you continued today with further reverts. Please review
WP:EDITWAR during your block. If you wish to contest it, please place {{
unblock|your reason here}}
on this page.
Given you have never been blocked, your block will only last 12 hours. I trust that you will pursue dispute resolution in the future rather than edit war. Regards, - Rjd0060 ( talk) 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't care which of you two is right, however another revert or close will cause me to block you for disruption. Please stop now. —— nix eagle 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Being right does not justify disruptive actions. Even though you were right (its a procedural keep, we don't hold deletion discussions on policies and in this case, a guideline), reverting is not the proper way to handle it. Discussion should begin before its reclosed ( words to think on). And as such, Nixeagle is not worried about who is right or wrong in this situation, he only wants the disruption to end. Don't drag things on to justify your edits. Just relax and take a deep breath. It will all be resolved with discussion (as it appears to be drawing to a close). :) Syn ergy 20:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to justify this edit to me please.
As many users are claiming MOSNUM as justification for the controversial practice of removing date links with bots. It seems only correct to note that it is noted that this practice has no consensus and is not formally endorsed by MOSNUM.
So would you like to explain you reasons for removing my edit? G-Man ? 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to direct me to the appropriate page to raise this issue. G-Man ? 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kotniski!
My name is Zivan Stevanovic, it's surely known to you from recent changes I'we made to etimology and explanation of word Marshal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal , which you removed several time as incorrect.
How you find your claim correct?
Becouse eminent resources such as Britanicca, merriam-webster, Online Etymology Dictionary have exact same explanation?
-Online Etymology Dictionary:
-1218, from O.Fr. mareschal, originally "stable officer, horse tender, groom" (Frankish L. mariscaluis) from Frank. *marhskalk, lit. "horse-servant" (cf. O.H.G. marahscalc "groom"), from P.Gmc. *markhaz "horse" (see mare (1)) + *skalkaz "servant" (cf. Du. schalk "rogue, wag," Goth. skalks "servant"). Cognate with O.E. horsþegn. For development history, cf. constable. The verb "to arrange for fighting" is from 1587.
-Merriam-Webster:
-Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French mareschal, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German marahscalc marshal, from marah horse + scalc servant
-Britannica:
- The rank evolved from the title of marescalci (masters of the horse) of the early Frankish kings. The importance of cavalry in medieval warfare led to the marshalship being associated with a command position; this rank came to include the duties of keeping order at court and in camp and of deciding questions of chivalry.
With due respect I read it and they don't make sense to me!
Doesn't that word have root way behind 11th cetury?
Why is world Martial unincluded, becouse is homophonic with Marshal?
I just want you to think of my correction with common sense.
Is it suitable meaning for highest military rank, which is appointed only in war - "stable servant"?
Or is it martial which mean, as I sead Warlike,which etymology is from Latin martialis of Mars (Roman god of war)?
Thanks in advance for reading this and taking it seriously!
Zivan Stevanovic ( talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Kotniksi, thank you for being tidy and cleaning up the discussion page. When moving a thread to a different page, it would be most useful if you could leave a note in either the page itself, the edit summary (or both) stating where the thread had been moved to. I'm not sure about the other thread that was in-progress ten hours ago... perhaps I can copy and paste the last dozen points from there and let it carry on. Once again, thank you for helping keep the page size down. — Sladen ( talk) 11:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
For wishes and best wishes to you as well. -- Molobo ( talk) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Kotniski! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One White cat 11:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
As the primary creator of the new yearbox etc. series of templates, could you please list them and request full protection. (If you prefer not to use WP:RFPP, due to the potential for vandalism, I'll understand, but please let me know, preferably by E-mail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Some discussion has recently re-continued here. Since you were once part of it, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my newest proposal. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 19:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia ( talk) 18:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you were still interested in running you rbot to add the remaining French commune infoboxes as posted on MJCdetroits page? The Bald One White cat 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
We can still use the redirect. Maybe a dull comment should suffice? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi K. I have retired from active service at the MOSpages, for now anyway. But I am delighted to see that you are involved in rational merging of disparate portions. It's a big task. Well done! Meanwhile, there doesn't seem to much useful action at WT:MOS itself. Recent changes to the guidelines for possessives are uninspired and puerile. Someone will pick it up, I trust. And the {{ xt}} markup is only partially implemented. I think that initiative was poorly managed, myself. Can't be helped though, in a direct democracy.
Best wishes, and keep up the very worthwhile work!
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 11:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
First, thanks for taking those pages and merging them down in to one simpler page. Second, I'm sorry for the trouble that seems to have resulted from my changes with the one sentence and two words. I really didn't expect Tony to react as he has. Hopefully this can be resolved without the merge being reversed over these (to me) trivial changes. — Locke Cole • t • c 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you given further thought to standing up for adminship? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I liked you proposal; it's a shame it won't be implemented-- DFS454 ( talk) 15:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Tchaikovsky's father was Ukrainian, so there is some logic in listing the composer. The only solution is to define, who should be included in the article. Xx236 ( talk) 10:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
At a recent AfD discusion, you argued in favor of keeping a Kanjivellam -- the Malayam word for gruel made with water and rice -- a separate article from Gruel. Articles must demonstrate notability (which I think this one has not) and be based on reliable sources. So far, the only "reliable sources" that have been found are a history of a religious community, which mentions it once in passing, and a press release from an Indian charity which mentions it as an example of a food they feed to sick children.
If you have further reliable sources, or other information about how this article can be developed without simply redirecting it to Gruel, please leave a message at Talk:Kanjivellam. Thanks for your help, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you proficient in Spanish ? How do you know those who shot Feldhandler were "anti-Semitic" ? Is there a description of their state of mind anywhere in the sources cited ? Maybe they did not allow UB and NKVD collaborants ? If you read and write Polish, read Polish version of Feldhandler article, put some effort into bringing English version closer to reality.
Poles tend to be anti-British lately, you know why, all these drunk, half-naked rednecks. Am I ? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.193.129.125 ( talk) 12:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you be able to help improve navigation among horse breed articles? See Template talk:Equine. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
...till Kotbot is done? Out of curiosity :) PS. DK4 ( talk · contribs) seems to have started doing something similar to Kotbot, judging by new articles reports (creates long series of stubs of Polish villages). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Kotniski. Thanks for your kind words -- although the issue turns out to be more complicated than that. Would you care to participate in the current discussion of sources at Talk:Leon Feldhendler. Once a consensus has been reached, I (or any willing party) can make the appropriate changes to Sobibor as well. Cheers! -- Rrburke( talk) 19:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You've been mentioned on Wikiquette alerts for edit warring to hide dispute [4]. Oicumayberight ( talk) 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Per this discussion, what do you think of my idea to limit policies to WP:3RR and its exemptions? I've been thinking that maybe a new classification should be created for NPOV, V, and OR. In practice they are not exactly policies. I also think that WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVIL should be demoted to behavioral guidelines, simply because what constitutes a violation is often unclear. Perhaps we could go through them and figure out what is truly non-negotiable and make that into a single policy. PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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.-- ragesoss ( talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Your improvements to the guideline are great. Sorry to have been such a stubborn mule about the lists, but ultimately I think having two lists is unnecessarily confusing to the users of this page, even if I appreciate the logic of why you proposed the split in the first place. In retrospect, though, you were right about not organizing it by continent. But I'm actually posting here to get a handle on your edit summary that read "in these countries tags are used even if *disambiguation* is not required". I don't disagree with your subsequent edit to that sentence (I was really just trying to get rid of the awkward sentence structure that predated your recent spate of edits), but I'm puzzled about the distinction you are making between tags and disambiguation. What tags? I could just be missing the obvious here, but I'm not following your logic so I thoughT I would ask (mostly out of curiosity). Regards. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank-you very-much! I would-never-have been able-to manage-that code... Bencherlite Talk 13:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Polish barnstar | |
For craeting so many thousands of articles on polish villages.
02blythed (
talk)
21:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Well done on your work on poland. You are doing brillaint work that would never be created otherwise. I just came across you while seeing the poland articles you have created. You therefore deserve this barnstar. |
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 07:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I see you have an interest in Konik. A whole bunch of articles related to that one have been getting a lot of work lately, including Tarpan aka Wild horse. Take a look? -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kotniski: Can you deal with this? Tony (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Kotniski, you seem confused. I'm not the only one undoing this portion of the merge, Kendrick7 initiated it. Now again, I ask you to revert yourself and join the discussion on the talk page (which you blanked, removing Kendrick7's comment). — Locke Cole • t • c 08:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kotniski, I fixed what are think were typos in your comment, I am not a native speaker so please check: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style_(links)&diff=271547636&oldid=271546798 Cheers Nicolas1981 ( talk) 10:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I really like your template {{ Catdesc}}. But it is a very complicated template for a novice to use. If you have time, could you please write a documentation page for it? Thanks. -- Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 03:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)