Are we talking about the same book? Page 280: "This opened the way for Polish uprisings and a revived "Polish Legion" to participate in the "liberation" of Prussian Poland" ( [1]). Not sure about the problem, actually. HerkusMonte ( talk) 18:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been working on an article you started, History of macroeconomic thought. I put the article up for peer review and got some useful feedback. I would like to put the article up for an FA or GA nomination, but I could use some more input. Are you OK with how the article turned out? Do you think an FA would be appropriate? Thanks.-- Bkwillwm ( talk) 03:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I sincerely raplied in some detail to 3o requests at Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807) and I hope this helps alleviate some of the controversy there. I see you have some history of disputes with the editor Skäpperöd. Perhaps you see him/her as intentionally denying a role for Poland or Polish figures in the seige, or of other bad-faith practices, but, really, there is not much in this particular article that is worth a controversy of any kind. Picture sizes and caption details of what to most people are obscure figures from the Naploenoic War seems almost irrelvant when you probably have a lot more new information to contribute to Wikipedia which isn't covered elsewhere. I am happy to reduce the discontent and lessen disputes if you let me, but I also invite you to consider how much your time is worth and how little this dispute in this article means to 99.9% of Wikipedia readers, or how little these disputes play into the overall message of the article. Thanks for your many efforts in this article and to Wikipedia generally, I'll be happy to stay involved here as long as my appearance is valued. Leidseplein ( talk) 05:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I finally found a source that supports the family relationship between Adamowskis and Paderewskis. A book that was written to honor Helenka Pantaleoni (see the citation that I added to her bio here), states that Antoinette (Antonina) Szumowska, who married Josef Adamowski and who was Tad and Helenka's mother, was the "sister of Paderewski's wife Helene." I'm not much on genealogy or figuring out family ties, but I would say from this that referring to Tadeusz and Helenka as "cousins" of Ignacy Paderewski has a basis. ~Mack2~ ( talk) 06:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created a new article on Warsaw's St. Florian's Cathedral and I'd be pleased if you review it and post your thoughts on the article's talk pages. Please do go ahead and edit or enhance the article if you like without waiting for consensus ("consensus" = me! (for now)) Leidseplein ( talk) 06:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, and if you're interested I'll notice you about future Poland-related articles I'm planning to create. Leidseplein ( talk) 21:11, 30 March 2011 (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave it to you, thanks. HerkusMonte ( talk) 19:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
ANI is a Zoo, its who shouts the longest the loudest. I am planning to make motion to the Arbs in light of this develpment to broaden the scope of from "closely related" to "broadly construed." Its SPA pushing this I mentioned earlier at another user's talk page out of the last three thousand article edits of this user the only one not in that scope was one about Jews. This individual cant help themself. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 21:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Infoman99 ( talk) 07:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I wrote my comment on WP:AN/I, I've been thinking that this would make a great redirect to an essay I've meant to write, "Wikipedia: Don't quote policy pages". (Or something to that effect.) The point of that essay is simple -- because the pages only describe -- do not prescribe or state -- what a given policy is, & because they can be editted at any time to read something completely different, they are usually out of sync with current working consensus. Besides, quoting policy will result with the response "TL:DR" at best, & serious suspicion at the worst. Whenever you need to explain what the correct behavior is, use common sense, paraphrase the section you believe applies to the present case, & be willing to admit you are wrong. Anyone who can do those things will find Wikipedia a productive experience in the long run; anyone who can't or won't is bound for a short & unpleasant time. -- llywrch ( talk) 20:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we'll need a free image for this article. Any ideas? -- llywrch ( talk) 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm writting regarding your (?) article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland .
I've found in it, in the caption under the photo in "Growing anti-Semitism" paragraph, rather odd translation for Polish phrase "miejsce w ławkach nieparzystych": "unpaired seats".
"Unpaired" means "withouth the other half (of a pair)" - one can have an "unpaired electron" (from an electron-positron pair) or an "unpaired shoe". When one talks about numbers, it is either "even number" (2, 4, 16, 128, and so on), or "odd number" (1, 3, 7, 45, 123, ...).
Furthermore, it is not actually the "seat" that carries an odd number, but the "bench" - so, "odd-numbered bench seat". (Or, " ~~ seats" - because this student is "allowed to take" -or rather, "restricted to use"- any of the seats in odd-numbered benches.)
Unless we decide that said "miejsce" in this particular case does not denote a "specific location" (thus: "seat"), but should be understood as "direction" (in a "command" sense of it), "a place/ an allocation within given space/ room" - as in "I know my place" phrase (in the sketch under the same title).
And should we decide so (which would be quite reasonable and logical), the caption should read something like "(sitting in) odd-numbered benches only".
Also, I feel that "Bench Ghetto" is better translation, for "getto ławkowe", than "Ghetto bench(es)" - the latter might suggest that it refers to some "benches from (or related to) ghetto", while the former, in my opinion, better conveys the essence of that "segregation issue".
Another "hmm...": "index"
English "index" is the equivalent of Polish "wykaz", "spis" (as in "indeks/ spis alfabetyczny", "indeks ksiąg zakazanych") - so, for English native speakers the sentence "Index of Jewish student of medicine at the Warsaw University" would mean something like "wykaz/ spis żydowskich student medycyny na UW".
Yes, I know: on the photograph one can clearly read (providing one speaks Polish) the title "wykaz wykładów i ćwiczeń" (and this is, I believe, the origin of the current Polish word "indeks" - a reference to that "wykaz"). Yet, the line below "wykaz ..." clearly reads "numer albumu ...." - which indicates, that the "item" (material object) in question is "the album", with the title "wykaz..." - and not the "wykaz..." itself.
For "indeks" (AFAIK an "equipment" unknown within the English-speaking world), the best translation would be (in my opinion): "student's book of registration of courses" (see discussion at http://pol.proz.com/kudoz/polish_to_english/education_pedagogy/1235920-indeks_studenta.html#2948560 )
"Medicine" - FACULTY of medicine.
"Seal" vs "stamp":
Seal: (noun) a piece of wax, lead, or other material with an individual design stamped into it, attached to a document to show that it has come from the person who claims to have issued it; a design embossed in paper for this purpose; a thing regarded as a confirmation or guarantee of something.
Stamp: (verb) impress a pattern or mark, esp. an official one, on (a surface, object, or document) using an engraved or inked block or die or other instrument: "the woman stamped my passport"; (noun) a mark or pattern made by such an instrument, esp. one indicating official validation or certification: passports with visa stamps.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2005)
So, my final proposal is:
Book of registration of courses of a Jewish student, Faculty of Medicine at Warsaw University, with "Ghetto bench" stamp above the photo. The stamp reads: "[sitting in] odd-numbered benches only".
And I'm not going to correct that caption any more myself - wikipedia might be a great "general" idea, but rather poorly implemented at the root level. Editing it is as simple and intuitive as Windows would be with GUI written by bunch of Linux aficionados - in short: a one big morass of obscure instructions and "rules".
I've just tried to correct only that "unpaired" thing, and the page ended up missing the photograph. Contacting the author is another pain in... whatever. (Polish wiki is much better in this respect - one can simply, if he or she is unsure about this or that, "report an error" to the author - and that's it, plain and simple)
Regards,
Karol 62.21.120.167 ( talk) 03:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 8 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dieter Schenk, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2003 the German author Dieter Schenk became an Honorable Citizen of Gdańsk after his work led a German court to overturn a World War II ruling on the defenders of the Polish Post Office in Danzig? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Marek,
you have recently deleted some information from Antiziganism article. I have reverted your edit. Although you are right about the motives of the person, who originally inserted the pictures, it was reworked and now it presents neutral and very well resourced information (I preferred to rework it instead of deleting it, as I believe, that information should not be lost in edits, if it can be reworked in order to meet Wiki's standards). It also fits within the "Environmental Struggles" part of the article.
I invite you to work on the article, especially to rework the whole "Environmental Struggles" section, or to rework the information regarding the pictures, while preserving essential content. But please refrain from simply deleting it (especially in parts, which are well sourced). Pozdrawiam Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 16:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on the need to put Justin Bieber's hair on the front page. I'm thinking of taking a trip to the university library in the morning - know of any recent academic treatises on Mr. Bieber's hair? Kansan ( talk) 06:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi
where you said this:
Reissgo, if you want to put in the article that "central bankers don't really believe this" you need a reliable source to that effect. If someone wants to put in stuff about endogenous money that's fine but we must observe WP:WEIGHT. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2010
I am sure you will find this interesting from national bank of poland on endogeneity of money and central banker ideas that appear to be regarded as fringe by many people?
http://www.bankikredyt.nbp.pl/content/2010/03/bik_03_2010_02.pdf
You might also find my talk page interesting which begins with undeleted version of one of my attempts to get these kind of articles onto the page. For the record none of that text is mine. it all came out of various references most of which are cited on that page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrewedwardjudd
I am attempting to write in the alternate view section of wiki and alternate view of frb but i am constantly being deleted for no reason other than people seem threatened by the citations
If you are able to explain to me what you mean by wp:weight in the context of king and others comments can you do so please? I am somewhat bewildered how such references are being dismissed as promoting a minority viewpoint outside of the mainstream and they are not allowed to have weight. Most people do not realise that the mainstream is something to do with text books and universities rather than the real world of finance? Why is this mainstream 'thing' so important to people?
I'm not trying to use weasal words. I just think that's a more accurate description. The research of most Pioneer Fund Grantees seems to put East Asians at the top of their hierarchies on intelligence and temperament. While they clearly emphasize Black inferiority it does make the description of them as "White Supremacists" problematic. Meanwhile there is no room for complaint that they promote Scientific Racism. EgalitarianJay ( talk) 19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The information you added to this article and the Richard Lynn one is not properly sourced. In both you added information about them being Pioneer Fund board members, and that this is a racist organization. This is cited to various sources that are attacking the PF in general, not these specific people, and also the list of board members at the PF website to show these people are on it. This is WP:SYNTHESIS because you're combining information in separate sources in order to formulate an attack on specific people that isn't directly supported by a single source. It's even worse that you're doing it in BLP articles.
This edit is troubling as well. Eysenck is one of the most cited psychologists of the 20th century, and is best known for his defining work on the nature of personality. In your edit you refer to him as "Psychologist Hans Eysenck, known for his support of the idea that some races are inherently inferior." When introducing Eysenck in a single sentence, is this really the most notable thing that he is known for - and the most neutral way to explain who he is? It looks like you've deliberately selected the most negative statement you can possibly find about Eysenck in the 100+ sources that discuss him.
This kind of synthesis and editorializing in BLP articles is not conducive to building a neutral encyclopedia. I'm going to mention this to Miradre and Maunus too to see what they think. Boothello ( talk) 06:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Re to Boothello. What do you mean it's "not properly sourced"? I provided three references in the article text and in one specific case listed a whole slew of further sources which state pretty much the exact the same thing. I did not put into the article that so-and-so (whether Lynn or whoever) are "racist" and "white supremacist" - only that the Pioneer Fund is described as such in sources. Which it is. There is no synthesis here. I have not combined any information from separate sources anywhere. You're either making stuff up or you simply do not understand WP:SYNTH policy.
Regarding Eysenck - he may very well be the most cited psychologist of the 20th century (which sort of says something about psychology as a discipline, at least historically, but that's off topic), but that doesn't mean the guy didn't hold some very offensive ideas. And in this particular context - Rushton and Pioneer Fund - it is precisely these offensive ideas which are relevant. Note that I didn't put that information into Eysenck's own article. So yes if I had put that in the article Hans Eysenck, then maybe you'd be right that that's undue. But this was an article on Philippe Rushton, discussing supposed praise for Rushton's work which has generally been described as racist - hence this particular aspect of Eysenck is very relevant. Again, I'm under the impression that you do not understand the proper policy (which would be WP:UNDUE here - and it wouldn't apply).
As regards BLP policy. I'm generally a pretty strong proponent of that policy and in many ways I think in fact it should be more stringent. However, the policy does not prevent us from presenting well sourced criticisms of individuals, and even less so, of organizations. And these statements are well sourced, and as I indicated on the talk page, there's a few dozen other sources out there which say the exact same thing - I thought three would be enough though. This isn't something that is even remotely controversial in mainstream sources (of course the matter is different if you find yourself in a conversation with a, uh, non-mainstream, person).
Re to Mirandre: Stay the hell off my talk page. You're not welcome here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my mistake with the comma. I fix it and added the hyperlink. The title in full (according to Timothy Reuter) is without comma, but of course as you rightly spotted in the short version does not makes sense. Mootros ( talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
We had a useful discussion at WP:ER, but it seems it died out just as we were about to reach a consensus on implementation. Please see my restart here, it would be a shame to let good ideas go to waste when we are so close to actually making something good out of all that talking. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Jurassic Park is mentioned for a hook at Wikipedia's "Did You Know?" section of the front page. The DYK discussion concerns the mathematician (mathematical economist) Ivar Ekeland, whom (along with James Gleick) Crichton credits as having inspired the discussion of chaos theory.
Trivially, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
:* Would you consider adding a check-mark to make it official? David Eppstein did it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazi_concentration_camps#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What a mess. This is a type of the article that would I'd be afraid to poke with a 10-foot pole... either as an editor or as an informed reader. If it didn't have its own ArbCom yet, I am sure that it is only a matter of time. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Marek, the goal of NPOV policy is to present the balance of viewpoints about a topic that exists in reliable sources. That means if an individual has been criticized, it is appropriate to include some of that criticism in articles where they're mentioned. It does not mean that it's okay for you to dig up absolutely the most critical statement you can find about that individual in any source, and then make that the only thing the article says about them. Faustian and I both pointed out what was wrong with this when you did it for Hans Eysenck, and now you’ve done the same thing with Corrado Gini. Look at the article about Gini - do you really believe that it's neutral for his pro-eugenics and pro-fascism views to be the only things mentioned about him, with no mention of his contributions to anthropology or biological statistics?
I know what justification you gave for this about Eysenck - that Rushton is a racist, so when we're discussing what Eysenck thinks of Rushton, the only thing worth mentioning about Eysenck is that some sources call him a racist also. I assume this is also what you think about Mankind Quarterly: that since some sources call it a racist journal, we should say nothing about its editors except that they're believed to be racists also, and their academic credentials are irrelevant. This argument depends on the assumption that Rushton and Mankind Quarterly have absolutely no notability for anything other than racism, and that assumption is false. Rushton is also notable as a psychologist, and Mankind Quarterly is also notable as an anthropology journal. Therefore it is equally relevant that some supporters of Rushton and some editors of Mankind Quarterly have made important contributions to science. NPOV policy demands that we balance accusations of racism against these individuals with the view that they have done useful work, and trying to exclude the latter perspective is POV pushing. I don't know how to make this any clearer.
All your recent edits to the Mankind Quarterly article are examples of this. According to its history the article had been stable for several years, and the only previous dispute about its neutrality on the talk page was in 2006. The only thing you've done on this article is add copious amounts of criticism, under the assumption that this was necessary to "fix" its neutrality. So apparently all of the other editors who were involved in this article for the past five years were too biased to recognize the need for this? Your behavior looks very strange to me. Boothello ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Poland Newsletter • April 2011
For our freedom and yours Welcome to our first issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop:
This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a [member link] at WikiProject Poland. • Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
Delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 21:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Needs a logo. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The main Pomerania article. Especially the history section. Seems like a lot of POV from articles and close paraphrasing was copied there.
[6] Example: The Teutonic Knights succeeded in integrating Pomerelia into their monastic state in the early 14th century. Meanwhile the Ostsiedlung started to turn Pomerania into a German-settled area; the remaining Wends, who became known as Slovincians and Kashubians, continued to settle within the rural East
Starting in the 10th century, early Polish dukes on several occasions subdued parts of the region from the southeast, while the Holy Roman Empire and Denmark augmented their territory from the west and north. I bolded the interesting parts.
I especially like how Poland on "occassion" subdues. But Teutonic Knights "successfully integrates" and HRE "auguments" territory ;) -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to change the title of the section' from 'uninvolved' to 'involved', please notify everyone who commented in the section so they can decide whether to move their comments. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This article exists. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The Synagogue was demolished in the riots of 1938, that's already mentioned. I don't see any reason to hide an information about the post-war usage of the building just because we don't have detailed information about its fate immediately after these riots. That the synagogue wasn't used as such for more than 60 years is definitely mentionable. HerkusMonte ( talk) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Part of my rationale behind the reconfimration RfA thing was to solicit feedback and you mentioned that you've disagreed with some of my actions, so I'm just wondering if there's anything you'd like to whack me over the head with while you've got the chance? Certainly if you have any suggestions on how I could be a better admin, I'd be keen to hear them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Some of your recent edits such as at
Alfons Hoffmann and
Drzymała's wagon violate the established policy of doublenaming places sharing a German-Polish history as defined in the well known
Gdansk vote.
Contrary to these principles you removed the alternative names mentioned in brackets. Please restore the proper names in accordance with the Gdansk vote as
Thanks. HerkusMonte ( talk) 17:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Volunteer Mark, I was reviewing Early history of Pomerania after a close paraphrase tag placed by you was reported here at WP:CP. It appears that the close paraphrasing may be from an offline source as I cannot find any matches aside from Wikipedia mirrors online. Your input would be appreciated at WP:CP to help close the report. Thanks.-- NortyNort (Holla) 13:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration enforcement thread concerning you has been started here: [8] Boothello ( talk) 05:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Marek, I am rather skeptical about this based on my experience.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by General reasonableness ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be pro-Volunteer Marek or anti-Volunteer Marek, or orthogonal to Volunteer Marek? I have no idea, but the picture's cool, so I'm keeping it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
If you remain concerned about civil POV pushing on race and intelligence, please see the closing for further ideas. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) is warned that he may be banned from editing with respect to the topic of race and intelligence if he fails to extend good faith and reasonable courtesy to others who edit with relationship to that topic. He is required to bring complaints about alleged special purpose accounts or established accounts who he feels are engaged in aggressive tendentious editing the topic of race and intelligence which violate the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or some other appropriate forum.
Do you know how to add Split template to history section in Szczecin article? It badly needs splitting into the main article but so far my attempts to add it have met with strange results. [9] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Please check your email. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Not that it is anything new around here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks VM-I totally forgot about Western Institute article which I wanted to correct a long time ago-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Augustyn Träger at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
OCNative (
talk)
11:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: [10]. I have this open in one of my browser tabs all the time now... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Zerkne. Ten okres znam glownie od rodzicow... ale niedoczekanie, zeby autorzy Trzynastego nie byli ency :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
[ [11]]
Better get over there, and stop the lynch party! 74.72.23.106 ( talk) 04:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 25 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Augustyn Träger, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that father and son Augustyn and Roman Träger were Polish intelligence agents who provided the Allies with crucial information about German testing of the V-1 and V-2 rockets during World War II? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 16:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 25 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roman Träger, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that father and son Augustyn and Roman Träger were Polish intelligence agents who provided the Allies with crucial information about German testing of the V-1 and V-2 rockets during World War II? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 16:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have Wojciechowski quote about history . And, no surpise here, it was manipulated. Strongly manipulated. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"Z przytoczonych wyżej względów wydawnictwo nasze, którego tom I mamy zaszczyt przedłożyć społeczeństwu polskiemu, jest jednostronne, dodajmy:świadomie jednostronne. Ziemie Odzyskane przez okres dziejów wchodziły w skład różnych organizmów państwowych w ostatnich dwóch wiekach były w całości w rękach niemieckich. Nie silimy się na tym miejscu na pisanie historii tzw. obiektywnej, zadanie nasze polegało na przedstawieniu polskiej historii tych ziem i rzuceniu polskiej współczesnej rzeczywistości tych ziem na owo tło historyczne, ale również przekonanie, że polska historia tych ziem jest ich historią najgłówniejszą."
Want to translate? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class | |
On behalf of WikiProject Poland, for your your Poland-related contributions, I, Piotrus, award you this Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class. Czołem! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to Volunteer Marek by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk on 01:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
What's your thought on them here? And does the Frost one work for you? It does for me... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Concerning
this, I have a pedantic (and not very serious) concern.
Is GDP really a level? After all, it's a measure of output over time - measuring output over a 1 month period would yield a number approximately 1/12 of the conventional annual measurement of GDP. Similarly, GDP is specific to a geographical area. The GDP of the area called "Europe" is the sum of the GDPs of various bits of land (and sea) called "Spain", "Italy", and so on. So, GDP isn't a level at all. Economic activity is a
flux, and GDP represents the surface integral of that flux. No? Economics is just applied physics.
bobrayner (
talk)
00:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Next time you realize you will not be able to finish the article for a DYK deadline, feel free to ping me to see if I can help. It's a shame to see such good starts miss the deadline :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
(PS - let me know if you would like to be notified via this talkback template each time I reply there.) Novickas ( talk) 21:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
A very interesting image. You may want to post it (or the non-KM specific version) at WP:FA for others to review and discuss. PS. Note that on Commons such images should be in the category Commons:Category:Wikipedia statistics (I categorized this one for you). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion has now been going on long enough that we are beginning to go around in circles. Before talk escalates to shouting, I think it is important to attempt a policy wording that would have the broadest appeal among the 'neutrals' that will also hopefully swing some of the opposers. Vejvančický ( talk · contribs) and I have been trying to work out on my talk page what wording we would like to see in a new proposed statement. Your input would be appreciated. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Are you planning on participating in the discussion that you started? I would be very interested in hearing your opinion, and a solution to the problem.
Regards, -- Therexbanner ( talk) 18:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In case it's a way of threading the needle, I've uploaded this cropped version. Will Beback talk 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Hoops gza has encountered numerous problems with understanding Wikipedia policies including undiscussed page moves, creating fork or split-off categories with no consensus, as well as lack of descriptions in edit summaries leading to numerous misunderstandings of intentions. On top of it all, there is a serious string of image notices on the user talk page, suggesting a pattern of uploading images with knowingly false licensing tags. I have brought these matters up on ANI twice, asking for a type of forced mentorship, but there was really no interest or even a response from administrators. The user isn't acting maliciously, just doesn't really seem to care. This is not the Wikipedia of five years ago for certain - the user would most certianly have been through a RfC by now if not a few blocks. - OberRanks ( talk) 17:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Mentioning the Pope in the hook seems to work too ( ~6k hits for kremówka). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Anonymiss Madchen has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Are we talking about the same book? Page 280: "This opened the way for Polish uprisings and a revived "Polish Legion" to participate in the "liberation" of Prussian Poland" ( [1]). Not sure about the problem, actually. HerkusMonte ( talk) 18:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been working on an article you started, History of macroeconomic thought. I put the article up for peer review and got some useful feedback. I would like to put the article up for an FA or GA nomination, but I could use some more input. Are you OK with how the article turned out? Do you think an FA would be appropriate? Thanks.-- Bkwillwm ( talk) 03:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I sincerely raplied in some detail to 3o requests at Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807) and I hope this helps alleviate some of the controversy there. I see you have some history of disputes with the editor Skäpperöd. Perhaps you see him/her as intentionally denying a role for Poland or Polish figures in the seige, or of other bad-faith practices, but, really, there is not much in this particular article that is worth a controversy of any kind. Picture sizes and caption details of what to most people are obscure figures from the Naploenoic War seems almost irrelvant when you probably have a lot more new information to contribute to Wikipedia which isn't covered elsewhere. I am happy to reduce the discontent and lessen disputes if you let me, but I also invite you to consider how much your time is worth and how little this dispute in this article means to 99.9% of Wikipedia readers, or how little these disputes play into the overall message of the article. Thanks for your many efforts in this article and to Wikipedia generally, I'll be happy to stay involved here as long as my appearance is valued. Leidseplein ( talk) 05:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I finally found a source that supports the family relationship between Adamowskis and Paderewskis. A book that was written to honor Helenka Pantaleoni (see the citation that I added to her bio here), states that Antoinette (Antonina) Szumowska, who married Josef Adamowski and who was Tad and Helenka's mother, was the "sister of Paderewski's wife Helene." I'm not much on genealogy or figuring out family ties, but I would say from this that referring to Tadeusz and Helenka as "cousins" of Ignacy Paderewski has a basis. ~Mack2~ ( talk) 06:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I recently created a new article on Warsaw's St. Florian's Cathedral and I'd be pleased if you review it and post your thoughts on the article's talk pages. Please do go ahead and edit or enhance the article if you like without waiting for consensus ("consensus" = me! (for now)) Leidseplein ( talk) 06:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, and if you're interested I'll notice you about future Poland-related articles I'm planning to create. Leidseplein ( talk) 21:11, 30 March 2011 (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave it to you, thanks. HerkusMonte ( talk) 19:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
ANI is a Zoo, its who shouts the longest the loudest. I am planning to make motion to the Arbs in light of this develpment to broaden the scope of from "closely related" to "broadly construed." Its SPA pushing this I mentioned earlier at another user's talk page out of the last three thousand article edits of this user the only one not in that scope was one about Jews. This individual cant help themself. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 21:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Infoman99 ( talk) 07:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I wrote my comment on WP:AN/I, I've been thinking that this would make a great redirect to an essay I've meant to write, "Wikipedia: Don't quote policy pages". (Or something to that effect.) The point of that essay is simple -- because the pages only describe -- do not prescribe or state -- what a given policy is, & because they can be editted at any time to read something completely different, they are usually out of sync with current working consensus. Besides, quoting policy will result with the response "TL:DR" at best, & serious suspicion at the worst. Whenever you need to explain what the correct behavior is, use common sense, paraphrase the section you believe applies to the present case, & be willing to admit you are wrong. Anyone who can do those things will find Wikipedia a productive experience in the long run; anyone who can't or won't is bound for a short & unpleasant time. -- llywrch ( talk) 20:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we'll need a free image for this article. Any ideas? -- llywrch ( talk) 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm writting regarding your (?) article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland .
I've found in it, in the caption under the photo in "Growing anti-Semitism" paragraph, rather odd translation for Polish phrase "miejsce w ławkach nieparzystych": "unpaired seats".
"Unpaired" means "withouth the other half (of a pair)" - one can have an "unpaired electron" (from an electron-positron pair) or an "unpaired shoe". When one talks about numbers, it is either "even number" (2, 4, 16, 128, and so on), or "odd number" (1, 3, 7, 45, 123, ...).
Furthermore, it is not actually the "seat" that carries an odd number, but the "bench" - so, "odd-numbered bench seat". (Or, " ~~ seats" - because this student is "allowed to take" -or rather, "restricted to use"- any of the seats in odd-numbered benches.)
Unless we decide that said "miejsce" in this particular case does not denote a "specific location" (thus: "seat"), but should be understood as "direction" (in a "command" sense of it), "a place/ an allocation within given space/ room" - as in "I know my place" phrase (in the sketch under the same title).
And should we decide so (which would be quite reasonable and logical), the caption should read something like "(sitting in) odd-numbered benches only".
Also, I feel that "Bench Ghetto" is better translation, for "getto ławkowe", than "Ghetto bench(es)" - the latter might suggest that it refers to some "benches from (or related to) ghetto", while the former, in my opinion, better conveys the essence of that "segregation issue".
Another "hmm...": "index"
English "index" is the equivalent of Polish "wykaz", "spis" (as in "indeks/ spis alfabetyczny", "indeks ksiąg zakazanych") - so, for English native speakers the sentence "Index of Jewish student of medicine at the Warsaw University" would mean something like "wykaz/ spis żydowskich student medycyny na UW".
Yes, I know: on the photograph one can clearly read (providing one speaks Polish) the title "wykaz wykładów i ćwiczeń" (and this is, I believe, the origin of the current Polish word "indeks" - a reference to that "wykaz"). Yet, the line below "wykaz ..." clearly reads "numer albumu ...." - which indicates, that the "item" (material object) in question is "the album", with the title "wykaz..." - and not the "wykaz..." itself.
For "indeks" (AFAIK an "equipment" unknown within the English-speaking world), the best translation would be (in my opinion): "student's book of registration of courses" (see discussion at http://pol.proz.com/kudoz/polish_to_english/education_pedagogy/1235920-indeks_studenta.html#2948560 )
"Medicine" - FACULTY of medicine.
"Seal" vs "stamp":
Seal: (noun) a piece of wax, lead, or other material with an individual design stamped into it, attached to a document to show that it has come from the person who claims to have issued it; a design embossed in paper for this purpose; a thing regarded as a confirmation or guarantee of something.
Stamp: (verb) impress a pattern or mark, esp. an official one, on (a surface, object, or document) using an engraved or inked block or die or other instrument: "the woman stamped my passport"; (noun) a mark or pattern made by such an instrument, esp. one indicating official validation or certification: passports with visa stamps.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2005)
So, my final proposal is:
Book of registration of courses of a Jewish student, Faculty of Medicine at Warsaw University, with "Ghetto bench" stamp above the photo. The stamp reads: "[sitting in] odd-numbered benches only".
And I'm not going to correct that caption any more myself - wikipedia might be a great "general" idea, but rather poorly implemented at the root level. Editing it is as simple and intuitive as Windows would be with GUI written by bunch of Linux aficionados - in short: a one big morass of obscure instructions and "rules".
I've just tried to correct only that "unpaired" thing, and the page ended up missing the photograph. Contacting the author is another pain in... whatever. (Polish wiki is much better in this respect - one can simply, if he or she is unsure about this or that, "report an error" to the author - and that's it, plain and simple)
Regards,
Karol 62.21.120.167 ( talk) 03:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 8 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dieter Schenk, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2003 the German author Dieter Schenk became an Honorable Citizen of Gdańsk after his work led a German court to overturn a World War II ruling on the defenders of the Polish Post Office in Danzig? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Marek,
you have recently deleted some information from Antiziganism article. I have reverted your edit. Although you are right about the motives of the person, who originally inserted the pictures, it was reworked and now it presents neutral and very well resourced information (I preferred to rework it instead of deleting it, as I believe, that information should not be lost in edits, if it can be reworked in order to meet Wiki's standards). It also fits within the "Environmental Struggles" part of the article.
I invite you to work on the article, especially to rework the whole "Environmental Struggles" section, or to rework the information regarding the pictures, while preserving essential content. But please refrain from simply deleting it (especially in parts, which are well sourced). Pozdrawiam Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 16:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on the need to put Justin Bieber's hair on the front page. I'm thinking of taking a trip to the university library in the morning - know of any recent academic treatises on Mr. Bieber's hair? Kansan ( talk) 06:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi
where you said this:
Reissgo, if you want to put in the article that "central bankers don't really believe this" you need a reliable source to that effect. If someone wants to put in stuff about endogenous money that's fine but we must observe WP:WEIGHT. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2010
I am sure you will find this interesting from national bank of poland on endogeneity of money and central banker ideas that appear to be regarded as fringe by many people?
http://www.bankikredyt.nbp.pl/content/2010/03/bik_03_2010_02.pdf
You might also find my talk page interesting which begins with undeleted version of one of my attempts to get these kind of articles onto the page. For the record none of that text is mine. it all came out of various references most of which are cited on that page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrewedwardjudd
I am attempting to write in the alternate view section of wiki and alternate view of frb but i am constantly being deleted for no reason other than people seem threatened by the citations
If you are able to explain to me what you mean by wp:weight in the context of king and others comments can you do so please? I am somewhat bewildered how such references are being dismissed as promoting a minority viewpoint outside of the mainstream and they are not allowed to have weight. Most people do not realise that the mainstream is something to do with text books and universities rather than the real world of finance? Why is this mainstream 'thing' so important to people?
I'm not trying to use weasal words. I just think that's a more accurate description. The research of most Pioneer Fund Grantees seems to put East Asians at the top of their hierarchies on intelligence and temperament. While they clearly emphasize Black inferiority it does make the description of them as "White Supremacists" problematic. Meanwhile there is no room for complaint that they promote Scientific Racism. EgalitarianJay ( talk) 19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The information you added to this article and the Richard Lynn one is not properly sourced. In both you added information about them being Pioneer Fund board members, and that this is a racist organization. This is cited to various sources that are attacking the PF in general, not these specific people, and also the list of board members at the PF website to show these people are on it. This is WP:SYNTHESIS because you're combining information in separate sources in order to formulate an attack on specific people that isn't directly supported by a single source. It's even worse that you're doing it in BLP articles.
This edit is troubling as well. Eysenck is one of the most cited psychologists of the 20th century, and is best known for his defining work on the nature of personality. In your edit you refer to him as "Psychologist Hans Eysenck, known for his support of the idea that some races are inherently inferior." When introducing Eysenck in a single sentence, is this really the most notable thing that he is known for - and the most neutral way to explain who he is? It looks like you've deliberately selected the most negative statement you can possibly find about Eysenck in the 100+ sources that discuss him.
This kind of synthesis and editorializing in BLP articles is not conducive to building a neutral encyclopedia. I'm going to mention this to Miradre and Maunus too to see what they think. Boothello ( talk) 06:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Re to Boothello. What do you mean it's "not properly sourced"? I provided three references in the article text and in one specific case listed a whole slew of further sources which state pretty much the exact the same thing. I did not put into the article that so-and-so (whether Lynn or whoever) are "racist" and "white supremacist" - only that the Pioneer Fund is described as such in sources. Which it is. There is no synthesis here. I have not combined any information from separate sources anywhere. You're either making stuff up or you simply do not understand WP:SYNTH policy.
Regarding Eysenck - he may very well be the most cited psychologist of the 20th century (which sort of says something about psychology as a discipline, at least historically, but that's off topic), but that doesn't mean the guy didn't hold some very offensive ideas. And in this particular context - Rushton and Pioneer Fund - it is precisely these offensive ideas which are relevant. Note that I didn't put that information into Eysenck's own article. So yes if I had put that in the article Hans Eysenck, then maybe you'd be right that that's undue. But this was an article on Philippe Rushton, discussing supposed praise for Rushton's work which has generally been described as racist - hence this particular aspect of Eysenck is very relevant. Again, I'm under the impression that you do not understand the proper policy (which would be WP:UNDUE here - and it wouldn't apply).
As regards BLP policy. I'm generally a pretty strong proponent of that policy and in many ways I think in fact it should be more stringent. However, the policy does not prevent us from presenting well sourced criticisms of individuals, and even less so, of organizations. And these statements are well sourced, and as I indicated on the talk page, there's a few dozen other sources out there which say the exact same thing - I thought three would be enough though. This isn't something that is even remotely controversial in mainstream sources (of course the matter is different if you find yourself in a conversation with a, uh, non-mainstream, person).
Re to Mirandre: Stay the hell off my talk page. You're not welcome here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my mistake with the comma. I fix it and added the hyperlink. The title in full (according to Timothy Reuter) is without comma, but of course as you rightly spotted in the short version does not makes sense. Mootros ( talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
We had a useful discussion at WP:ER, but it seems it died out just as we were about to reach a consensus on implementation. Please see my restart here, it would be a shame to let good ideas go to waste when we are so close to actually making something good out of all that talking. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Jurassic Park is mentioned for a hook at Wikipedia's "Did You Know?" section of the front page. The DYK discussion concerns the mathematician (mathematical economist) Ivar Ekeland, whom (along with James Gleick) Crichton credits as having inspired the discussion of chaos theory.
Trivially, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
:* Would you consider adding a check-mark to make it official? David Eppstein did it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazi_concentration_camps#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What a mess. This is a type of the article that would I'd be afraid to poke with a 10-foot pole... either as an editor or as an informed reader. If it didn't have its own ArbCom yet, I am sure that it is only a matter of time. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Marek, the goal of NPOV policy is to present the balance of viewpoints about a topic that exists in reliable sources. That means if an individual has been criticized, it is appropriate to include some of that criticism in articles where they're mentioned. It does not mean that it's okay for you to dig up absolutely the most critical statement you can find about that individual in any source, and then make that the only thing the article says about them. Faustian and I both pointed out what was wrong with this when you did it for Hans Eysenck, and now you’ve done the same thing with Corrado Gini. Look at the article about Gini - do you really believe that it's neutral for his pro-eugenics and pro-fascism views to be the only things mentioned about him, with no mention of his contributions to anthropology or biological statistics?
I know what justification you gave for this about Eysenck - that Rushton is a racist, so when we're discussing what Eysenck thinks of Rushton, the only thing worth mentioning about Eysenck is that some sources call him a racist also. I assume this is also what you think about Mankind Quarterly: that since some sources call it a racist journal, we should say nothing about its editors except that they're believed to be racists also, and their academic credentials are irrelevant. This argument depends on the assumption that Rushton and Mankind Quarterly have absolutely no notability for anything other than racism, and that assumption is false. Rushton is also notable as a psychologist, and Mankind Quarterly is also notable as an anthropology journal. Therefore it is equally relevant that some supporters of Rushton and some editors of Mankind Quarterly have made important contributions to science. NPOV policy demands that we balance accusations of racism against these individuals with the view that they have done useful work, and trying to exclude the latter perspective is POV pushing. I don't know how to make this any clearer.
All your recent edits to the Mankind Quarterly article are examples of this. According to its history the article had been stable for several years, and the only previous dispute about its neutrality on the talk page was in 2006. The only thing you've done on this article is add copious amounts of criticism, under the assumption that this was necessary to "fix" its neutrality. So apparently all of the other editors who were involved in this article for the past five years were too biased to recognize the need for this? Your behavior looks very strange to me. Boothello ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Poland Newsletter • April 2011
For our freedom and yours Welcome to our first issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop:
This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a [member link] at WikiProject Poland. • Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
Delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 21:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Needs a logo. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The main Pomerania article. Especially the history section. Seems like a lot of POV from articles and close paraphrasing was copied there.
[6] Example: The Teutonic Knights succeeded in integrating Pomerelia into their monastic state in the early 14th century. Meanwhile the Ostsiedlung started to turn Pomerania into a German-settled area; the remaining Wends, who became known as Slovincians and Kashubians, continued to settle within the rural East
Starting in the 10th century, early Polish dukes on several occasions subdued parts of the region from the southeast, while the Holy Roman Empire and Denmark augmented their territory from the west and north. I bolded the interesting parts.
I especially like how Poland on "occassion" subdues. But Teutonic Knights "successfully integrates" and HRE "auguments" territory ;) -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to change the title of the section' from 'uninvolved' to 'involved', please notify everyone who commented in the section so they can decide whether to move their comments. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This article exists. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The Synagogue was demolished in the riots of 1938, that's already mentioned. I don't see any reason to hide an information about the post-war usage of the building just because we don't have detailed information about its fate immediately after these riots. That the synagogue wasn't used as such for more than 60 years is definitely mentionable. HerkusMonte ( talk) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Part of my rationale behind the reconfimration RfA thing was to solicit feedback and you mentioned that you've disagreed with some of my actions, so I'm just wondering if there's anything you'd like to whack me over the head with while you've got the chance? Certainly if you have any suggestions on how I could be a better admin, I'd be keen to hear them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Some of your recent edits such as at
Alfons Hoffmann and
Drzymała's wagon violate the established policy of doublenaming places sharing a German-Polish history as defined in the well known
Gdansk vote.
Contrary to these principles you removed the alternative names mentioned in brackets. Please restore the proper names in accordance with the Gdansk vote as
Thanks. HerkusMonte ( talk) 17:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Volunteer Mark, I was reviewing Early history of Pomerania after a close paraphrase tag placed by you was reported here at WP:CP. It appears that the close paraphrasing may be from an offline source as I cannot find any matches aside from Wikipedia mirrors online. Your input would be appreciated at WP:CP to help close the report. Thanks.-- NortyNort (Holla) 13:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration enforcement thread concerning you has been started here: [8] Boothello ( talk) 05:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Marek, I am rather skeptical about this based on my experience.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by General reasonableness ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be pro-Volunteer Marek or anti-Volunteer Marek, or orthogonal to Volunteer Marek? I have no idea, but the picture's cool, so I'm keeping it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
If you remain concerned about civil POV pushing on race and intelligence, please see the closing for further ideas. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs) is warned that he may be banned from editing with respect to the topic of race and intelligence if he fails to extend good faith and reasonable courtesy to others who edit with relationship to that topic. He is required to bring complaints about alleged special purpose accounts or established accounts who he feels are engaged in aggressive tendentious editing the topic of race and intelligence which violate the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or some other appropriate forum.
Do you know how to add Split template to history section in Szczecin article? It badly needs splitting into the main article but so far my attempts to add it have met with strange results. [9] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Please check your email. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Not that it is anything new around here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks VM-I totally forgot about Western Institute article which I wanted to correct a long time ago-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Augustyn Träger at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
OCNative (
talk)
11:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: [10]. I have this open in one of my browser tabs all the time now... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Zerkne. Ten okres znam glownie od rodzicow... ale niedoczekanie, zeby autorzy Trzynastego nie byli ency :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
[ [11]]
Better get over there, and stop the lynch party! 74.72.23.106 ( talk) 04:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 25 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Augustyn Träger, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that father and son Augustyn and Roman Träger were Polish intelligence agents who provided the Allies with crucial information about German testing of the V-1 and V-2 rockets during World War II? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 16:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 25 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roman Träger, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that father and son Augustyn and Roman Träger were Polish intelligence agents who provided the Allies with crucial information about German testing of the V-1 and V-2 rockets during World War II? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 16:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have Wojciechowski quote about history . And, no surpise here, it was manipulated. Strongly manipulated. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"Z przytoczonych wyżej względów wydawnictwo nasze, którego tom I mamy zaszczyt przedłożyć społeczeństwu polskiemu, jest jednostronne, dodajmy:świadomie jednostronne. Ziemie Odzyskane przez okres dziejów wchodziły w skład różnych organizmów państwowych w ostatnich dwóch wiekach były w całości w rękach niemieckich. Nie silimy się na tym miejscu na pisanie historii tzw. obiektywnej, zadanie nasze polegało na przedstawieniu polskiej historii tych ziem i rzuceniu polskiej współczesnej rzeczywistości tych ziem na owo tło historyczne, ale również przekonanie, że polska historia tych ziem jest ich historią najgłówniejszą."
Want to translate? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class | |
On behalf of WikiProject Poland, for your your Poland-related contributions, I, Piotrus, award you this Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class. Czołem! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to Volunteer Marek by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk on 01:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
What's your thought on them here? And does the Frost one work for you? It does for me... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Concerning
this, I have a pedantic (and not very serious) concern.
Is GDP really a level? After all, it's a measure of output over time - measuring output over a 1 month period would yield a number approximately 1/12 of the conventional annual measurement of GDP. Similarly, GDP is specific to a geographical area. The GDP of the area called "Europe" is the sum of the GDPs of various bits of land (and sea) called "Spain", "Italy", and so on. So, GDP isn't a level at all. Economic activity is a
flux, and GDP represents the surface integral of that flux. No? Economics is just applied physics.
bobrayner (
talk)
00:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Next time you realize you will not be able to finish the article for a DYK deadline, feel free to ping me to see if I can help. It's a shame to see such good starts miss the deadline :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
(PS - let me know if you would like to be notified via this talkback template each time I reply there.) Novickas ( talk) 21:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
A very interesting image. You may want to post it (or the non-KM specific version) at WP:FA for others to review and discuss. PS. Note that on Commons such images should be in the category Commons:Category:Wikipedia statistics (I categorized this one for you). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion has now been going on long enough that we are beginning to go around in circles. Before talk escalates to shouting, I think it is important to attempt a policy wording that would have the broadest appeal among the 'neutrals' that will also hopefully swing some of the opposers. Vejvančický ( talk · contribs) and I have been trying to work out on my talk page what wording we would like to see in a new proposed statement. Your input would be appreciated. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Are you planning on participating in the discussion that you started? I would be very interested in hearing your opinion, and a solution to the problem.
Regards, -- Therexbanner ( talk) 18:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In case it's a way of threading the needle, I've uploaded this cropped version. Will Beback talk 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Hoops gza has encountered numerous problems with understanding Wikipedia policies including undiscussed page moves, creating fork or split-off categories with no consensus, as well as lack of descriptions in edit summaries leading to numerous misunderstandings of intentions. On top of it all, there is a serious string of image notices on the user talk page, suggesting a pattern of uploading images with knowingly false licensing tags. I have brought these matters up on ANI twice, asking for a type of forced mentorship, but there was really no interest or even a response from administrators. The user isn't acting maliciously, just doesn't really seem to care. This is not the Wikipedia of five years ago for certain - the user would most certianly have been through a RfC by now if not a few blocks. - OberRanks ( talk) 17:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Mentioning the Pope in the hook seems to work too ( ~6k hits for kremówka). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Anonymiss Madchen has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!