User talk:Piotrus

File:Kyokpae banner.png

File:WikipediaSignpost icon.png You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Piotrus/Archive 12. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied!. Thank you.

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.

Archive

Talk archives: Archive 1 (moved Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (moved Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (moved May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (moved July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (moved September 27, 2005), Archive 6 (moved November 23, 2005), Archive 7 (moved January 7, 2006), Archive 8 (moved 19 March, 2006), Archive 9 (moved 6 May, 2006), Archive 10 (moved 17 June, 2006), Archive 11 (moved 28 July, 2006), Archive 12 (moved 25 September, 2006)

Have seen worse days. Reasons for my raising wikistress: not many :) Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :) To remind me not to take things too seriously around here! If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that, at my discretion, I will either: seek community approval of my adminship through a modified RfC; (no consensus == no change) (see separate section for process) choose to take the matter to ArbCom; (see separate section for process) resign my powers "under a cloud" and possibly stand again for adminship at some later date of my choosing; (see separate section for process) once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria and the matter concerns use of my admin powers at this wiki rather than a non-admin editing concern (use the standard dispute resolution mechanisms), a use of CheckUser (use the ombudsman process, or take the matter to the Audit Subcommittee, as appropriate, if standard dispute resolution does not resolve the matter), or actions at another wiki (use the processes at that wiki). The rest of this page fills out particulars and commits to certain processes in advance so as to reduce ambiguity or the possible perception that I will change the rules as I go along to get the desired outcome. Note: This page has a talk page because I value input and feedback on this whole thing. There's some lively discussion there already, and you, gentle reader, are invited to comment as well. The Recall Petition process The petition shall operate as follows: A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be selected by me to make sure that the petition process itself is smooth and that the requirements for petitioners are satisfied. The petition start time will be constituted as when the first eligible petitioner announces intention to recall by posting on my talk page. Ineligible petitioners (as judged by me) will not start the process unless I choose to waive eligibility for that petitioner. Such waiver shall be binding. If it takes longer than 24 hours to find a clerk and begin the process, the petition start time will be constituted as when the page is created and ready for use. A page in my user space will be created with sections for certified, unknown, and uncertified petitioners. If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated, but is not required as a condition of participation in the petition process. Deleting, or arguing for deletion of, the petition page by a petitioner, however, shall cause that petitioner to be disqualified from certification of the petition, unless I explicitly waive that disqualification. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable. Additional sections may be added as the community desires for comments of whatever sort. These shall have no bearing on the petition outcome except to sway public opinion. The clerk is empowered to enforce decorum at the clerk's (and my) discretion, subject of course to public opinion not looking kindly on suppression of expression. I reserve the right to waive eligibility and numeric requirements at my sole discretion on a case by case basis. This means that I can deem a petition certified when it strictly would not have been. However this is only a waiver, it cannot make anyone ineligible or raise any numeric requirements. Waiver of requirements for one person does not waive them for others by default. The clerk will move petitioner signatures from unknown to certified or uncertified based on eligibility. After exactly 5 days the petition shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible petitioners. If at least 6 petitioners including the initiator are eligible, the petition shall be deemed certified and the next step of the process will be initiated. (the next step is one of the three, Modified RfC, self initiated RfAr, or resign "under a cloud" and stand for RfA at some later date of my choosing) as given above, at my choosing... the decision may be announced in advance of certification, at my option, but need not be. The modified RfC process (choice 1) This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The modified RfC will be constituted as follows: A page in my userspace will be created. Certification of the RfC will be waived. If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated but is not required as a condition of participation in the process. Arguing for deletion, however, shall cause that person's comments to be stricken or construed as favorable to retaining adminship, whichever is appropriate or more favourable to me, at my discretion. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable. A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be appointed to make sure that the RfC process itself goes smoothly, and to determine eligibility where appropriate. Preference would be given to the same clerk that clerked the petition, if that clerk is willing and if I feel they have done an adequate job. The RfC will be started by referencing the entire text of the recall petition Two questions will be included: Should I keep my adminship/Should I resign my adminship Anyone qualified to vote in an ArbCom election, as construed in the most recent previous one to the initiation of the petition, or one then ongoing, whichever is more favourable (looser voting requirements), can sign under either of these two questions. Those not qualified will have their signatures and comments moved to sections that make it clear what their views are, but that do not count toward the total. Any other sections desired may be added but will not have bearing on the outcome except to sway public opinion At the end of exactly 5 days the modified RfC shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible commenters. If a simple majority to retain exists, I will not resign. If tied, or if a majority does not exist, I shall resign. Resignation shall be construed to have been "under a cloud", and if I wish to regain my adminship I will have to stand again via the normal RfA process. Those that consider this not to be an RfC are welcome to give it whatever term they wish but these process steps will be used, and supersede standard RfC process where there is a conflict. The conclusion of the RfC after the outcome is certified and my action is taken, if any, will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including starting a regular RfC, initiating an ArbCom case, etc. The RfAr process (choice 2) This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The RfAr will be initiated as follows: I will initiate the case myself, perhaps with assistance from the petition clerk if the clerk is willing. I will name myself and the certified petitioners as parties. I will state that I feel sufficient notice has been given to all parties. I will incorporate, by reference, the petition, and ask that arbcom consider it as evidence. I will ask any arbitrators that were petitioners to recuse but leave that decision to their good judgement. I will otherwise cooperate in whatever way possible, answering any questions asked to the best of my ability. I reserve the right to present material in my own defense. I reserve the right to suggest that other persons be named as parties. I undertake to carry all this out in the shortest reasonably possible time consistent with external events. Final determination of whether to take the case rests with ArbCom but I will strongly recommend that the case be taken and I would certainly appreciate (but not require) petitioners to also so strongly urge/recommend as well. If ArbCom declines to take the case, that concludes the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases. I reserve the right, but not the obligation, to initiate either choice 1 or 3 in this case. (I will try to be reasonable) If ArbCom takes the case, their judgement on principles, findings, and remedies will be binding on me, I will not work to circumvent them. The conclusion of the case will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases. Resignation (choice 3) This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The resignation shall be constituted as "under a cloud" meaning that a re RfA has standard success criteria as then constituted by the community and that withdrawing midway through is not an option for regaining admin status. Only a successful RfA will suffice. I may choose to stand again for RfA immediately, at some later date of my own choosing, or never, as I deem appropriate. Grace period Any change in any provision of this that makes it more stringent to qualify a petition or participate in any other part of the process, or more likely to lead to an outcome more favourable to me shall have a 2 week "grace period" during which any recall initiated will be under the old terms. Any change that is of the opposite sense (easier to qualify/participate, less favourable to me) shall go into effect immediately. No Double Jeopardy Once this process concludes for matters raised by petitioners during an instance of this process, I will not honor a second recall request regarding the same matters. If however new matters arise, the community is welcome to initiate another recall. No vexatious litigants No petitioner may initiate or support a petition for my recall more than three times in any 365 day period. This does not apply to participation in a modified RfC. Severability This is about my commitment to the community to be accountable, not about a category membership. Thus, the provisions of this page shall survive if, for example, the CAT:AOTR (or successor, whatever named) is deleted, renamed, listified. etc., and under any other reasonable circumstances. Only my explicitly stated withdrawal from this commitment itself will suffice. No withdrawal I do not intend to withdraw but that's an intent, not a promise. However, I promise not to withdraw to escape the consequences of this commitment. The only time I will withdraw from this category is if no recall is currently underway. This is subject to the same 2 week grace period as the eligibility or any other changes, so any withdrawal has at least 2 weeks to go into effect. Notes I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms. copyrigth Czesc pan Piotrek, Im Thorek Sekuterski/Sredzinski Herby Leliwa. I want to make a commercial book about Polish Nobility. I would like to use sources from wikipedia.org like example the text about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miko%C5%82aj_Hieronim_Sieniawski Mikołaj Hieronim Sieniawski (1645-1683) was a Polish noble (szlachcic), military leader, politician. Son of the starost of Lwów Adam Hieronim Sieniawski and Wiktoria Elżbieta Potocka, the daughter of Hetman Stanisław "Rewera" Potocki. He married in 1662 the daughter of Court and Grand Marshal Prince Aleksander Ludwik Radziwiłł, Princess Cecylia Maria Radziwiłł. Leliwa Coat of ArmsHe was Grand Guardian of the Crown since 1644, Great Chorąży of the Crown since 1668, Court Marshall of the Crown since 1676, starost of Lwów since 1679, voivode of Volhynian Voivodship since 1679, Field Crown Hetman since 1682 and starost of Radom, Rohatyn, and Piaseczno. He became famous as a talented commander in wars against Cossacks and Tatars during the reign of King Jan II Kazimierz. In the rank of a Chorąży he companioned Jan Sobieski in the Chocim expedition. He was Marshal of the Coronation Sejm on March 2 - March 14, 1676 in Kraków. Like his son Adam Mikołaj, he participated in the Vienna expedition of 1683. My version in my book is edited, modified or changed and shortend also i will use the photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mikolaj_Hieronim_Sieniawski_%281645-1683%29.jpg since all this history information is provided by users often anonymus and without sources i may use them? Im also using Boniecki and Niesiecki as source. Will there be a publishng problem with my commercial book? Jenki for for yout pomoc Piotrek... Thorek Sekuterski/Sredzinski Sweden I would apreciate if the answer is sent to my email: Thoreks@Hotmail.com Jenki Pan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.104.200 (talk • contribs) User:193.180.104.200, 09:03, September 8, 2006 (UTC) Please accept my apology with reference to your following comment : //It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern: Hoax/vandalism, one google hit, creator vandalised two other articles replacing them with this content.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus // Dear Sir, I didn't comitted the above action itentionaly/knowingly. All I wanted to do was to submit a new article about a very important but lesser know warrior clan of India, I thought that edited page will not replace the original one but will be "saved as". Please let me assure you that such mistake will not be repeated in future. I couldn't understood your comment "one google hit" . Please explain. If it is a fault than it may have done unknowingly. Please don't delete the article titled as : "Mall Sainthwar Rajputs" a warrior race of India. Thanks Yours faithfully Shalendra Singh email : Singh_shalendra06@yahoo.co.in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalendrasingh (talk • contribs) 13:23, October 10, 2006 Regarding verification of the article "Mall Sainthwar Rajputs" At present I am unable to give you the reference of any English book which affirms to this because this article has been taken from hidi books which i will let you no soon. present reference on google search you may see is http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/RAJPUT_Mall_Sainthwar/ rgards shalendra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalendrasingh (talk • contribs) 04:55, October 12, 2006 Signpost updated for October 16th. The Wikipedia Signpost Volume 2, Issue 42 16 October 2006 About the Signpost Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China $100 million copyright fund stems discussion Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones Wikipedia in the news Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line 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. Ralbot 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Solidarity Hello, thanks for the message. I am, just like you are, also not a native speaker of English, but will try to take a look at the article again if you'd like (although it'd really be best if a native speaker did it). As for the references, yes, thanks, that what bothered me appears to have been resolved. --Ouro 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) evewiki hey can you give me a convo / evemail ingame (PreTender) about the evewiki admin place— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.169.89 (talk • contribs) History of S Thanks for your message. Sure, I have had intention to do so. Still, I'm thinking of a nice rationale (and I'm leaving for tommorow, so I'll not be there before friday). Hope, we have still some time left. Best --Beaumont (@) 11:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC) from wikipedia to the classroom Hi Piotr! Glad you liked the paper. I agree that contributing to Wikipedia is a great learning experience. Like I mentioned at Wikimania, though, there are a few reasons why Wikipedia isn't always the ideal writing enviornment for students. One of the problems is that high school students learning about very basic biology concepts, for example, don't have much room to write anymore on Wikipedia. The goal for learning is the collaborative, public writing experience, not the production of a single artifact; the goal for the Wikipedia community is obviously the artifact. Students also can't use primary material from their lab work, upload datasets, etc, to support their writing on Wikipedia. Although it may not be as critical in science as in humanities, students sometimes need to have room to write POV material and refine it, etc, without being shot down. Finally, I wonder if the Wikipedia community would really be that much better off for my dumping in classrooms full of high school students who don't necessarily want to be there and asking them to edit for a grade... That said, the students who use Science Online as a learning environment are certainly be encouraged to write on Wikipedia as well! It is going fine, we just started a small study with 15 students a couple weeks ago. :-) I'd love to hear more about how you use Wikipedia in the classroom if you make your paper available. --Andicat 11:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) new Poland article Roman Odzierzyński. Hope you can turn it into a proper stub. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Bereishit FAC You have not replied to the Bereishit (parsha) for four days now. Could you please either withdraw your objection or reply to my point please? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC) One Google Hit Explained Please note that Indian History is not found in the net in the same magnitude as European or American History. Also most of the Indian magazines (dailies, weeklies) do not have a online version. Another factor is that the vernacular (Hindi, Tamil etc) magazines use different fonts and is not searchable by Google Another problem is the use of different spelling for the same name. For example, my town is referred to as Tuticorin, Thoothukudi, Thoothukkudi, தூத்துக்குடி etc. You can get the complete picture only if you search all these. Even then since most of the matter is not online, you may not even get one hit If something does not turn up in Google, it does not mean that it is non-notable for the above reasons.  Doctor Bruno  00:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC) More on it Please note that the Google test is totally useless for India related topics. I am very sure about this, but most of the europeans and americans are not able to understand this Then, I am very much convinced that the votes there are NOT SOCKPUPPETS, but made by persons from that community who are not able to understand the wikipedian rules I agree that it is terribly formatted, but that is not a criteria for deletion. When American villages with population less than 1000 can have an article, why not an article for a community which has more people  Doctor Bruno  12:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC) DYK On October 18, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fighting Solidarity, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. Hi. Could you do the necessary tweaks to the Georgian Indepdence treaty please? Also, do you know why Bravad quit? That makes me very upset.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Decency Piotrus, I have not spoken with you for months, but this edit is beyond the pale. Please don't do this again. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Piotrus would understand if his article, say History of Solidarity, or any other one was moved to Polish propaganda or images of his favored AK army were deleted with similar summaries. Those soldiers, not just Russian, btw, but also Ukrainian, Georgian, Jewish, gave their lives while ridding Europe from the Nazism. Since the time I've heard Piotrus responding to the discussion of this at the article's talk with the jokes about watches, I am not surprised by such edits supplied with such summaries. I thought I would be able to take this stuff less emotionally next time. I overestimated myself though. It still hurts. Thanks for the lesson. --Irpen 08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC) As the Łódź (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history's shows, the picture is deemed dubious/controversial/inappopriate by quite a few editors, so please stop adding this Soviet propaganda photo to this article. Nobody is denying the SU role in defeating the Nazism, unfortunatly, you seem to be blind to what follows.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC) If "quite a few" means you and Lysy, this is just ain't enough to call it a consensus... And honestly, this stubborn resistance is pretty much meaningless. This photograph was not staged (unless you can prove the contrary), so it depicts a real event. That its coverage of the event may not be exhaustive is another problem, but in no way a reason to remove it... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Do you have proof it was not staged? On a discussion page somewhere we already noted that some of the 'civilians' are dressed in Russian uniforms. Anyway, I think there is no need to force those controversial photos into the articles about cities, feel free to use them in articles about WWII battles and such.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Decency II Indeed, there are good ways and bad ways. The good ways do not work and anyone is free to slander my good name and insist on even the most absurd claims. The bad ways do not work either, but at least they are refreshing. Anyway, the matter is closed now and I'm not going to write any more articles on known Lithuanians, except perhaps for expanding the articles on Lechas Valensas and Marija Konopnickiene. //Halibutt 00:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)