Jump to content

User talk:Kotniski/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

NB

I came across this, a work in progress. Occuli (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed that too. At least it's keeping him occupied... --Kotniski (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion

A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that in your comments.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 03:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/Polish

Can I entrust you to be a coordinator? Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, as time permits.--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Kotbot has been given the green light anyway. I've begun developing the new project check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Polish/Politics/Politicians for example. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey don't forget to add the template to all of the towns and villages in each district, otherwise they won't appear in thew category! Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an example? If an article already exists, the bot won't touch it (though I may alter it manually later).--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the most important thing is that these are started... Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shall I continue with them manually? Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to, the bot will handle them (unless you want to make articles that contain more information than the bot-created ones, in which case obviously go ahead). I'm working on improvements to the code at the moment - should be up and running again by the end of this week.--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome idea BTW. I don't know though how it will be possible for the other languages to maintain as many articles as us though. It would mean we would have 10 million articles shared and would require more work for the smaller wikis. I don't know if its possible. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamelonka (Zajezierze)

Hmm, is there any reason for the (Zajezierze) on en and on pl wiki in the name? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Collapsible list expanded

Hi. I've added an option at Template:Collapsible list to allow it to be expanded by default. Do you need Template:Collapsible list expanded anymore? — RockMFR 23:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If your option works, then no, I don't think the other template is needed.--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";
(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";
(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;
(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 04:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Discuss this

Heads-up

You (or a permutation thereof) have been mentioned in a thread at WP:AN/I here. Knepflerle (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know:) --Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Nowe Słowiki

Do not remove anything from the Infobox. Do you have knowledge about Polish villages? See Talk:Nowe Słowiki--WlaKom (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What became of the double redirect discussion?

I just came across Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_44#Double_redirects (on occasion of this), and am wondering what became of that discussion. There seems to have been a majority for allowing double redirects; did that lead to any formal decision? — Sebastian 04:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly was a majority for allowing them, but the devs never made the change - I think because the software doesn't yet offer a way of detecting overlong chains of redirects when the maximum chain length is greater than 1. Maybe the devs will get to work on it again one day (there is a request somewhere at Bugzilla). For the moment I guess we still have bots "repairing" double redirects. (This is a good example of how Wikipedia "works"...) --Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I know what you mean by "how Wikipedia works". But maybe it does work: I once watched some ants, and while I don't remember the details, I was amazed to see how ineffective they were. But it works for them, so maybe there's hope for us! I have hope for Xqbot; the owner Xqt seems to be reasonable, and I'm optimistic that something good can come from our discussion there. — Sebastian 15:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia talk:Double redirects#Many double redirects are good. — Sebastian 00:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Czech Rep. municipalities

Hello my friend! I slowly returned back to WP work and I noticed you started to work on Czech Rep. municipalities. I want to thank you for that effort, it is really nice. If you need any help or advice, feel free to ask me. - Darwinek (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with translation, as you pointed out, is correct. It is a very special designation and the fact is, that many people in the country don't even know about it, it is kind of new. Also it seems to relate to some medieval tradition, because there are some regions (mostly industrialised ones) without městys municipalities. "Market town" is not the best translation, as "small town", but I wonder if městys can be translated properly at all. I think not. So maybe leaving just "městys" would be enough. Anyways there is a special category for them, "Market towns in the Czech Republic", so please, categorise městyses there. Anyways it seems just a few districts are left and all municipalities will be covered. When that will happen, I would ask you to do one little category cleanup with Kotbot. - Darwinek (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflict

Just letting you know that I added you as supporting a position at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions.    M   23:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lenora

As far as I see it, there's no good reason for the US city to have precedence, so I've changed Lenora from a redirect to a disambiguation page. Do you know of any other Lenoras besides the ones listed there? If you want to reply, please do so at my talk page; thanks. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[[1]]

Hi Kotniski,

I've noticed that you're a persistent voice in favor of simplifying policies. I don't have a deep institutional knowledge of the nuances of our policies but I'm a very clear writer (I did a big cleanup at WP:Citation needed and am working at WP:5P) and I'd be happy to work with you on this. I'm adding myself to Wikiproject Policies and Guidelines now. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[[2]]

Hi Kotniski,

I've noticed that you're a persistent voice in favor of simplifying policies. I don't have a deep institutional knowledge of the nuances of our policies but I'm a very clear writer (I did a big cleanup at WP:Citation needed and am working at WP:5P) and I'd be happy to work with you on this. I'm adding myself to Wikiproject Policies and Guidelines now. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lapka

\== [[3]] ==

Hi Kotniski,

I've noticed that you're a persistent voice in favor of simplifying policies. I don't have a deep institutional knowledge of the nuances of our policies but I'm a very clear writer (I did a big cleanup at WP:Citation needed and am working at WP:5P) and I'd be happy to work with you on this. I'm adding myself to Wikiproject Policies and Guidelines now. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work on that 5P page, by the way.    M   00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Czech municipalities

Hello Kotniski. Two days ago your bot created an article about the village where I was born :) The information is correct. It's also very nice to see the blue see in the overview of Moravian ethnographic regions. There is only one missing article: cs:Charvátská Nová Ves. Thanks many times, Kotnisky. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (sosklmd kjmdmilsmpas,lmn derssku][@pod)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arion.D.Lewis434 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not

I saw this edit. Perhaps that was a mistake? Even though the page is not a policy, but the Template:Policylist Deletion seems a lot more relevant to the contents of this page and its likely readers. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, put it back if you think so. Though it seemed to me that everything that was on that template was effectively covered by the other template; and it looks odd listing a page as policy when we've just decided it isn't.--Kotniski (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
In fact the policylist template seems not to be transcluded on any other page, so it may be redundant.--Kotniski (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Putting a template with information about policies is not the same as stating that this page is a policy. If you feel right about it, please make the edit (I am on an editrestriction, remember). If you don't, I have no real problem with leaving it this way. I just think that the policy template is of more interest for the most likely readers of this page. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
All right, I've put both templates up. The best solution is probably to merge them into one (particularly since the smaller one isn't transcluded anywhere else).--Kotniski (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I merged them. You may want to remove the small one now. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots of work there. Thanks. Pknkly (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your input at our discussion

Would you please review and comment on the last part of a discussion another editor and I have at Help talk:What links here#Question. How do we hide excessive linkage?? Thanks Pknkly (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NC

By merging "Use the most easily recognized name" with common name, now "Use the most easily recognized name" is arguably limited by the "unless more specific guidelines say otherwise" clause in common name, which it was not before. This is not good. See NC talk. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles

I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. You have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion#Requested_move to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

French communes requests

Hi. Did you finish Czech Republic afterwards? I noticed you reached the last district. If so, well done!. Maybe you are busy with Poland at the moment but in due course I wondered if you could see Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes/Status and consider using your bot to copy the remaining commune infoboxes from French wiki. Basically all that needs doing is copying the infoboxes directly and tweaking them a little like reducing the number of coordinate digits and removing the wiki lnks from some of them. See an exmaple here. You have to remove the coordinates from the bottom too so they don't overwrite the infobox. Now compare it to the infobox on French wiki here and you'll see that they can pretty much copied exactly with only minor changes.

Could you take a look? I am certain your bot would be able to do i. It has taken 18 months so far to add them manually and we still have several thousand to copy and it is very hard work manually. Even a bot which could just copy and paste it directly into the remaining articles on the remaining communes would be massively helpful and would likely save a further 18 months manual work.. In due course then I hope the infoboxes can be converted to a standard infobox by the others... The ones without infoboxes in currently look like Montbray Himalayan 20:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I got to the end of the Czech districts (starting from the place you said you'd done up to). I'll be happy to help with the French ones in due course, but for now I really want to concentrate on finishing the job I'm doing with the Polish villages (it turns out there are quite a lot of errors with the coordinates on Polish WP, and I'm trying to pick those up as far as possible). That will take quite a few more weeks - I'll let you know when I'm finished and we can think about the French communes.--Kotniski (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeha, lots of place names with the same name causing confusion. OK I'll pop back in a few weeks and see how you are going. Thanks for letting me know. Himalayan 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. We are revisiting the links to the disambiguation page Nowa Wieś at WP:DPL, and I've proposed a compromise format that can be seen at [4] (it's the only place I've made such a change). If you have comments, please let me/us know at DPL. Thanks.... Dekimasuよ! 05:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

France

Looks like Rich Farm beat you to it in transferring infoboxes. I'm certain though your services will be required for another country... Himalayan 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, glad to hear it was done;) I'm still plodding through some Polish articles at the moment, will let you know when I have time to take on another job... --Kotniski (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Romanian infoboxes it looks like. Infoboxes and population data needs adding to them. Your bot could probably use the Romanian statistics site to reference them. Like Horea, Alba. Himalayan 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Żegiestów Zdrój

Sigh. Prod to delete, or rewrite? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Turns out we already have an article on this place, at Żegiestów, so I've merged them.--Kotniski (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Category:Set indices on Poland

Shouldn't all of those pages be moved to "placename (disambiguation)"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the disambiguation people decided to start making them into set indices, at least those that have too many "incoming links" for a disambiguation page (i.e. the lists with lots of villages, all in Poland). See WT:Disambiguation pages with links.--Kotniski (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Thank you

Thanks, Kotniski, for your tireless work and patience on improving naming policy, guidelines and conventions, and in particular WP:NC lately. Too bad you we're not quite together on the consistency issue, but I'm confident you'll come around soon.  ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Born2cycle (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Romanian communes

Still busy? Hopefully soon enough your bot can add infoboxes and population to all of the Romanian commune articles... Himalayan 19:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I might be able to find time to do this soon. Can you point me to the categories in question?--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to edit a page

I just fell on Wikipedia:How to edit a page for the first time in ages. I slapped a {{How-to}} on the page, but it really looks as though it needs some love and attention. Who would be the best person to mention it to, would you think? Hiding T 19:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe WP:WikiProject Help? But I'll have a look at it myself if I get time.--Kotniski (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Kozielsk

I am not really sure why Kozielsk was redirecting to Russian Kozelsk, but I have fixed that. Now, should Kozielsk, Żuromin County be moved to "Kozielsk" since that page is now vacant? Also, would adding a "for the Russian city, see "Kozelsk" to the Polish village article be helpful (I am not comfortable making that call for a place in Poland)? I left a similar header in Kozelsk; feel free to remove if you think it's redundant. Just an FYI. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:36, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added the hatnote to the Polish article and asked for it to be moved to Kozielsk.--Kotniski (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kotniski. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Editorial resource pool.
Message added 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I noticed that you are a regular contributor at wp:categorization and recently responded to a category question ( see Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Categories#Editing "category" pages ). If you have the time and inclination, I would like to consider you as a resource. Pknkly (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)

You recently commented in the discussion concerning consensus on this page. You may be interested to know that the conversation appears to still be ongoing and another used has removed the section, in it's entirety, from the page. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I think you may have violated 3RR on the policies and guidelines page. Bear in mind that every undoing of another editor's work counts toward it; it need not be the same material each time. Could you please check your removals and additions over the last 24 hours, and if you have violated it, would you mind reverting yourself? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right, come along and blatantly undo everyone else's work without discussion (oh, but that's one big revert, not three small ones, so that's obviously fine), then complain about me trying to be constructive and accidently perhaps breaking the letter of 3RR. If I get blocked, then good; it will stop me wasting my time trying to improve things here when my supposed colleages seem to have quite different agendas.--Kotniski (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for the above, I shouldn't have been so snappy - there were a couple of unconnected things making me angry with Wikipedia at that moment.--Kotniski (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on WP:ANI/3RR. Didn't we already have a conflict like this once, with WAS? When you see some people stubbornly object to what you consider to be improvements, discuss it on the talkpage. That way, nobody can accuse you of making non-consensus edits, and perhaps the result will be even better than you thought. I'm willing to add Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to my watchlist and participate in discussion. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rationalising the 42 General Questions

Hi, there's supposed to be a limit of one question; I'm not sure how strictly that's going to be a applied, but I wonder in the meantime whether you might ration yours down to ... two? If you see opportunities for conflating any of your questions with those of other users (as co-authors), please consider asking those users. User:Tony1/Sandbox_for_ArbCom_general_questions#.282.29_Challenges_of_being_an_arbitrator. Tony (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Category redirects

This doesn't work. If you want to create a category redirect, please use {{category redirect}}. Otherwise, the bot won't recognize it and I have to waste time fixing it manually. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to remember for next time (unless we have hard redirects in place by next time...)--Kotniski (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A being to bold

I am honored that you would find reason in my ideas I have about your edits, and including my ideas inside your new version of WP:Be Bold. I say version, and not "edits" because you changed every paragraph and idea, the way a senior copy-editor might do a a junior journalistic piece. Well, it turns out to be in a region that covers half of the article. It's short. But I have to laugh when you say you put all your changes back "per talk". Ha! There was no discussion. I myself, my person, am not "talk", even though I might wish I was. But even if I did, alone, personally, represented the thousands of editors and millions of users of Be Bold, we did not talk or discuss. C'mon Kotniski.

Surely you will agree that you are editing the very guideline that you might use to rationalize your action, and making it "self documenting"? In other words you must admit that you could be under an unconscious bias here that only another caring editor could gently reveal. Let's shift the focus over to other editors for a moment. Surely you can agree that your edit summary "a bit of clarification" does not do justice to the situation a watchpage might convey to it's human observer? If you can't fully describe precisely what was changed and why, then per WP:SR, you should explain each and every change you made on the discussion page. That way I am not forced to make careful study of the diff report, while in Wikipedia crisis mode, as in "now!". Now, if you were to parcel out a set of related editing actions (OK?) in a series of sets (alright?) so that they may be contested or undone as a set of edits, (follow me?) then every edit you made would be perfectly acceptable and would ideally give me and the other stakeholders a little more time to evaluate, at our convenience the proposed changes.

The main problems with numerous changes all at once is that if any one of the changes is imperfect, all the perfectly good changes gain an unassailable bias within the minds of the other half we have on the wiki: those that taketh away, the dark reverth lords, the bane of be bold. A wide-ranging set of changes require so much (enjoyable) time that the edits as a whole force themselves "onto the throne" during an extended evaluation and discussion time, and that's not policy. Policy is for the changes to "hover" over the royal head before being spoken, if the utterance is a long speech. If it is true that thousands of discussion hours went to make the kingdom's phraseology and ideology which you painted over in such a rapid fashion, then it is also true that although it may not have looked like a Rembrant to you (are you a literary scholar, or a university professor by chance?) it is the flower of collaborative, the fruit of the future of "food for thought" for humanity.

The pattern I see in your word choices is that you bluntly cut right through "the bullshit". We are so much alike in that sense. But to me, (1) collaboration is not bullshit, (2) it is the journey that is most important, and not the destination, and (3) patience is a virtue I work peacefully to contain. Wikipedia editors are constrained by consensus and civility. Arghhhhh!!!

There is simply no other option but to revert any such massive change to any page by anyone on Wikipedia. Do you see? (I am beginning to.) I've got another task around the house that is "expensive" and I personally won't have time to discuss. I will again later. I hope you will not revert them back. But if you do decide to revert your changes back again before any real discussion, the humans we have ignoring for now will arrive on talk pages in civil and uncivil swarms. Well, at that's what happened to me (at WP:fringe) when I did just like you are doing at WP:BOLD.

Thank you for reading, and giving me something fun to do on Wikipedia:Be Bold today. I hope you are OK with the lessons offered.

Happy editing!

— CpiralCpiral 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're coming from now. I addressed all the points you raised on the page, now you're just reverting because - well, from what you write, I understand you're reverting the changes not because you disagree with anything, but because you think other persons unknown might disagree with them. Surely you could at least wait until these unknown persons show up to speak or act for themselves? If any of this wording really was the result of wide discussion, then surely someone who was involved in that discussion will come along and tell us about it? By undoing other editors' work on the off chance that something might be wrong with it, you seriously hamper the process of improving the encyclopedia (or in this case, the encyclopedia's "user documentation"). This is the whole point of the "be bold" principle - if every little change has to be pre-discussed, and if people are going to punish other people for their boldness by blind reverting them, then progress will be very slow and painful. To say that you have "no other option" is simply untrue - no-one forced you to take any action on behalf of these unidentified others. --Kotniski (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Your logic about the assumed nay sayer makes perfect sense, and I agree that by challenging you that progress becomes slow and painful. But... Be bold does not apply to the Be Bold page. Why? There is a section in Be Bold about Non-article spaces pages wherein, ironically, we trod, and see but this does not apply to non-article space. Indeed, changes to guidelines and policies should be discussed first. Check out the banner on top of the Be Bold page, where it says "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus".
One reason nobody else has stepped up to take up the situation you present is because as you might guess, they don't want to write fifteen paragraphs of studied and researched information in a civil and objective and neutral manner. Me? I love it, because I'm trying out my fairly recently acquired knowledge, and it is rather thrilling to be forced, by some abstract understanding to push the undo button (even though I don't want to because of the responsibility it entails). Its an abstract undertaking, and if not done correctly, the ego is fierce, vengeful, and painful. I really appreciate the fact that you are being so considerate to me. Thanks. Also it takes time to proofread and make the required "reasons for revert on the talk page" as is the civic duty (another abstraction) of a Wikipedian revert. I am very honored to have my words read and respected because this is my first time to do such a thing, and because by doing this I make up for the time I did the same exact thing you are doing.
Now, let us go to the discussion page, post your entire version, or parts of it, or however you wish to proceed on discussion. Shall we? Oh, and after you and I (and whoever) agree on what we want (we already have a good start), and we are done discussing, then we make a new discussion section whose top half is the entire section, and whose bottom half is a numbered list of each change and why. Then, we begin days and days and days of waiting for any comments or objections. If during the incubation and presentation time there are no serious assaults by swarms of malcontents, then we have in reality had many hidden but important proofreaders who have found nothing seriously wrong enough in our version to merit all the, as I said, abstractional responsibilities, then we can assuredly swap it over and make our improvement. Are you willing to go through all this? It's your baby, man. I will maintain my current position as discussion page primary, and watch for your postings. We can discuss here, there, email, whatever, but we need to let the trial version go through a "soak" period before swapping it in. After all, words are just code, and they do the same thing in the software world, run a new version for a while on the backup side to test for bugs. OK?
Or you could make several non-substantive changes without discussion. But for each change, you would have to explain in the edit summary or on the discussion page what you changed and why. So there's always that need anyway you go. (Again, see WP:SR.) That is not the best route because the integrity of the article, it's style and organic flow (yes there is such a literary term) is holistic.
Finally, remember the phrase in WP:BB where it says "but it's OK, ya can just do a revert" on a template? Well, it says the same thing on the top side to, and in my opinion that is not something we want to encourage, because as I've explained, it is difficult work and heavy responsibility to have to revert. I mean, it takes one wrong misreading of such a phrase, one five minutes of fame, page rampage, and then some editor like you will have to spend ten times that amount of time cleaning things up.
— CpiralCpiral 01:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
All right, I don't necessarily agree with all of your philosophy (I think you have the importance of the offending section rather exaggerated in your mind), but I've taken it back to the talk page and invited comments about my proposed changes. Please contribute there if you can.--Kotniski (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced the wording of your question

Hi Kotniski: please re-add if you think there's a problem, but I've brought your question (and those of others) down to the kernel. I don't think there's a point in actually asking them whether remedies are for punishment, since the rules say they're clearly not. If the community doesn't come in and complain that remedies are punitive on a case talk page, there's nothing to be done. The questions are still hugely bloated, and a few people have been most uncooperative in reducing their number. It's here. Tony (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather keep the longer version (or at least, a longer version - I'm happy to trim it somewhat) since there were more issues raised than just the one that you reduced it to. Is there some reason we have to trim our questions? Which is the official list - the original questions page or this Template:ACEQuestions?--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

WT:POLICY

Just checking ... for the previous and future policy reports in the Signpost, I won't usually include myself in the discussions, and I'll give people warning ahead of time. Our discussion at WT:POLICY seems like a reasonable choice for this Monday's column ... but if you'd like to add to your comments, or edit the summary of your or anyone else's comments at WT:POLICY#Interview for Signpost, please feel free. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Small Favor

If you really want to discuss and debate the thread from the ArbCom, I would prefer to discuss it on your talk page. Like yourself, I dislike seeing only one side of a discussion on a talk page. I hope you can accommodate me. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't really understand; you want to move the whole thread here from your talk page? Leave it there but continue it here? Either would be fine by me, though I don't have any particularly great desire to return to that topic.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please remove the whole thread from my talk page to yours. But if you don't have any "particularly great desire" to return to that topic (our discussion), that's fine and I'll just delete it. Besides although I believe you and I could have had a reasonable discussion, the other two editors have pretty much poisoned the atmosphere with a barrage of cheap shots and innuendo. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
OK then, fine by me if you go ahead and delete it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Romanian communes

See Category:Communes and villages in Romania. I've done the first county and the first few of the second. Basically all it needs doing is adding infoboxes/maps and a population figure and reference using that 2002 census site like Şibot. Basically I want all of the crappy articles like Salcia Tudor to add least have an infobox and location and a population/reference.. Himalayan 19:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

IPAr --> IPAc-pl

Hi Kotniski,

I can't remember where we had this discussion. I put in a request at User talk:AnomieBOT to move all pl switches at IPAr to IPAc-pl, but they'd like a link to the consensus for the bot coding. kwami (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi. You recently participated in a debate regarding Categories for deletion criteria G6: Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name. Your input would be appreciated at this RFC. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 14:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Church of St. John of Jerusalem Outside the Walls

If you were to add some inline cites, this would be fine for T:TDYK... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tczów

Hi again,

I think we've had this conversation, but it might be wise to put a note on the talkpage of Tczów that it really is pronounced "T-czów", in case some idiot like me thinks that's just an automation error and it should be "Czów". kwami (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Congrats on the mention in the 'post! :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Help:MediaWiki namespace

Hi Kotniski. I left a message for you over at Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace#Merge?.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Book Stubs, based on Public Domain available through Google Books

Kotniski,

User Marek69 suggested that I contact you about this idea because of your experience with bots.

I wanted to get your opinion on an idea I had for creating new Wikipedia article stubs based on Public Domain Books hosted by Google Books. I got the idea when reading the Wikipedia Article on Wikipedia's Growth, link included here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia's_growth At one point in the article it mentioned that (Ram-Man) created an article stub for every town in the United States using Rambot in October of 2002. Here is the quote from the article.

"The sudden jump in article count in October 2002 is due to roughly 30,000 stub articles on U.S. towns and cities generated from a database being added by an auto-posting robot, Rambot, during an eight-day period. Although initially controversial as to whether these were "real" encyclopedia articles or merely "stubs", most of the Rambot articles have since been substantially expanded."

That got me thinking that other large data sets of notable and important information might also be worth automatically creating stubs for which can then later be expanded upon. With this information still fresh in my mind I was checking up on the progress of Google Books and noted that they are now hosting more than 1,000,000 public domain books as part of their Google Books project. http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2009/08/download-over-million-public-domain.html

I think it would be an incredibly valuable resource to have a bot like Rambot create, 1,000,000 stubs for the public domain books hosted on Google Books. This is a resource of already vetted and notable material, hopefully in a standard format at Google including author name, book title, year of publication, name of publisher, summary of the book and more.

Please let me know what you think of the idea and if you would be willing to create a special bot for the task. I'm happy to assist, but I lack the technical programming skill required to create the bot.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

OrangeCorner (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I might be able to help if it gets going, but I rather doubt if there would be support among the wider community for this task. There currently seems to be quite strong feeling against creating large sets of stubs automatically, based on recent discussions where similar things have been proposed. You probably need to raise the issue at the village pump and so on, to see if people want this to happen.--Kotniski (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, Thank you for the quick response to my message. I agree that getting community support for the task is going to be one of the main objectives. Below is the set of TO DO's that user AnomieBOT suggested, first to assess technical feasibility and then approach the community with the proposal. Here is the text from his response.


There are a number of things that must be done before such a bot can run:
  1. You must obtain access to the information in some machine-parsable format, so we don't have to crawl a million Google pages scraping the information. This need not be direct access to a live database of any sort, a dump of the necessary metadata or a way to download the list of PD books and the metadata for each book is fine. Periodic notification of new and updated PD books would also be nice, even though it would probably take over a year for the bot to get through the first million at normal editing rates (10 seconds per book that doesn't already have an article, plus 10 seconds per image if applicable, plus downtime whenever the Wikipedia servers are more than 5 seconds lagged).
    • In fact, the ability to download a list of all PD books last modified in a given date range plus the ability to download the metadata just for specific books would probably be the most convenient, especially if the server supports HTTP persistent connection. The bot could then just download each month's worth of titles, check if each book's article already exists, and download the metadata for just the books it needs.
    • The metadata should contain as many of the fields in {{Infobox Book}} as possible, the more you have the better your chances of getting community consensus for the proposal. Also, if available a synopsis would be helpful for including more than just "X is a book written by AUTHOR and published by COMPANY in YEAR" in the stub. And, of course, we need whatever information is necessary to generate a link back to Google's human-readable page for the book.
  2. If the metadata does include the synopses, you'd probably need to get permission sent from Google to WP:OTRS for those synopses to be uploaded as part of the article under the CC-BY-SA (or, better yet, Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA/GFDL dual license) as there may be sufficient original work in summarizing the book to garner copyright protection for the summary. Or get Google to just officially and explicitly state somewhere on their site that their synopses of PD books are themselves PD or CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-SA/GFDL dual licensed.
  3. If the metadata contains images (or reference to images) appropriate for the infobox, you'd also need to either determine that those images must be PD (e.g. as slavish reproductions of a 2D image; asking at an appropriate Commons page (e.g. Commons talk:Licensing) would be your best course of action for that), get permission sent from Google to WP:OTRS for those to be uploaded to Commons under a free license of their choice, or get Google to just officially and explicitly state somewhere on their site that their images of PD books are themselves PD or are released under an appropriate free license.

And here was my response.

AnomieBOT,

Thank you for the quick response to my message.

I appreciate the logical way in which you have presented the items that need to be accomplished before the BOT can tackle this type of project.

I agree with the path you have detailed and I will begin the process of, 1. obtaining access to the information in some machine-parsable format, 2. get permission from Google to access those synopses to be uploaded as part of the article (if there are synopses available which there may not be) 3. determine that any images are PD, for those synopses to be uploaded as part of the article.

I will work to accomplish those first three items on the list. They should just be a matter of time, negotiation, or workarounds. I agree with you that getting community consensus will be the most difficult part of the equation and I appreciate your offer to help write the proposal once the first three items are in place. I will certainly be taking you up on that offer.

As for use of BOTs I agree with you that they can be extremely useful in matters where pure tedium is preventing a positive contribution to Wikipedia. I certainly believe a project of this type falls squarely in that corner.

As for the question of notability I think it can be well argued that given these public domain books secured publication of hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of copies they had an impact on enough people and other literature to be worthy of inclusion. As way of comparison if an American town of a few hundred residents is worth consideration given the effect it had on the lives of those people and all those who may have traveled through it, certainly a book which has achieved at least the same level of notice deserves the opportunity to be included and later expanded by those who it had an important effect on. Certainly just as we can't pre-judge the effect or history a small town had on the nation until its content is explored, neither can we fathom the importance of the literary history of our world until we open the page and see the connections to the other books we know so well. Just imagine the depth of knowledge it would give Wikipedia access to if we could summarize and map the timelines, connections, and authors of our literary history. In a way I see it as an opportunity to finally unlock the remaining depth of knowledge still outside of the internet. While Google may have scanned them in, only by linking them on Wikipedia to real world topics or other books of interest, could someone ever hope to find and unlock their value.

Again I appreciate the assistance and the detailed analysis of the tasks required. That is exactly what I needed to help kick this project off.

Talk with you again soon.

Cheers,

OrangeCorner (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski,

So it looks like the idea is starting to roll forward. Any advise or assistance you could offer in accomplishing these tasks, especially the first three would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

OrangeCorner (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gwda & Łąkowo

A couple villages have rather odd names: Gwda Wielka, Gwda Mała, Gwda, West Pomeranian Voivodeship. The stop-fric-stop /ɡvd/ is s.t. I wouldn't expect word initially; a bit like Gdansk, but with what might've historically been a labial velar. Assuming /ɡvda/ with stress on the /a/ is correct, this might be a good example to add to the Polish phonology article—one of those "no, it really is like that" examples, since from Czech one might expect the /v/ is syllabic.

Łąkowo looks like it has a different problem: The IPA is transcribed [wɔnkɔvɔ], but wouldn't it really be [wɔŋkɔvɔ]? Does this need to be changed? kwami (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the history of "gvd", or whether phonetically the v could be called syllabic, but I'll try and find out. Certainly it doesn't take the stress. As to Łąkowo, you're right, and there are probably many other examples like this - I didn't use to make the n vs. ŋ distinction in my transcriptions, and native Poles probably wouldn't either, since it's not phonemic in Polish. Maybe at some point I'll get a bot to look for these.--Kotniski (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll start w the ŋ. We have it listed on the IPA chart, so we should be consistent. (It's quite salient to the English ear, which is who it's intended for.)
Also, in Bąków Dolny and Bąków Górny, shouldn't the <w> be [v], since it's before a voiced consonant? kwami (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I guess so in these cases (though if the second word began with a voiced sonorant, then the pronunciation of the first would depend on region, and I think the unvoiced variant would be considered standard). --Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouch :)

Włostowice,-Puławy,-district. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Districts of Kraków

(You wrote)
Hi, there seems to be a bit of inconsistency with these, since we have an article called Districts of Kraków which concerns the 18 dzielnice, and we have a Category:Districts of Kraków which contains mainly articles on various other neighbourhoods of Kraków. Could we agree to follow the example of Warsaw, call the dzielnice "boroughs" and smaller districts "neighbourhoods", at least for categorization purposes? (There's also a Category:Boroughs of Kraków, but it only has one page in it - not sure how that came about.) --Kotniski (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for mentioning this. The Categories are a big mess, and need to be straighten out. First of all, the term Borough is unpopular in North America where I live. We use the word District instead, because boroughs originate from British English, with far less readership worldwide. Therefore, I would suggest to stick to Category: Districts of Kraków without renaming it, and remove the subcategory about the Boroughs of Kraków. In the past, there used to be a stub for each of the Districts separately, but they were all merged recently into one article called Districts of Kraków and disappeared from the page of categories. Please note that in the Category: Boroughs of Poland there are only four cities listed: Kraków, Poznań, Warsaw, and Wrocław. Meanwhile, we all know that most Polish cities have Districts (or Boroughs) just like them; so, they should eventually populate the categories as well, but that might take time. Not all Districts deserve an article in Wikipedia as of now, but they should at least appear in our Categories. We can do that by adding new categories at the bottom of articles about other cites as well. --Poeticbent talk 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that last bit. But as far as the naming of categories go, you'd suggest renaming Category:Boroughs of Warsaw to Category:Districts of Warsaw, and similarly with the other cities (Poznań, Wrocław)? Sounds OK to me.--Kotniski (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my proposal. What I meant by the last bit however, was an option I'd like you to consider. For example, in an article about Łódź there are no districts mentioned in text at all, but there is an article in Polish Wikipedia called pl:Dzielnice Łodzi listing Bałuty, Górna, Polesie, Śródmieście and Widzew. These districts could appear in our future Category: Districts of Łódź providing that they were somehow linked from the article's own list of cats. That's what I meant. --Poeticbent talk 18:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how it's possible to do that - the article's own list of cats can only contain links to the categories the article is in. But about renaming the borough categories to districts - I'll mention it at the Poland project talk page, and if no-one objects then I'll do it.--Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I see your point about the list of cats mentioned inside articles about cities, thus making it impossible to specify the districts in this way. The only solution is to create a series of stubs i.e. Districts of Łódź and so on (for all major aglomerations), so the Category: Boroughs of Poland would at least include the names of most other big Polish cities linked from it. --Poeticbent talk 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi after a visit to krakow a few months ago I have been quietly and irregularly tagging categories for the polish project - have no fear - my polish is zilch - it was impenetrable as hungarian was for me - so its just a maintenance of categories and project thing i have :) SatuSuro 08:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

The weekly Policy Report in the Signpost features community feedback on policy pages; see for instance here, here and here. We're putting together another one for the Signpost 9 days from now at WT:Consensus#Signpost Policy Report. I'm asking for your participation because you made an edit within the last two months at that talk page, but all responses are welcome. I'm not watchlisting, so if you have questions or comments, please drop a note at the policy talk page or my user page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Białystok

I noticed your work on the administrative divisions of Białystok. The main article lists "osiedla" as "districts", which is a gross misunderstanding. Polish "osiedle" is a "neighbourhood" in North America, similar to a residential neighbourhood Strathcona, Vancouver in the city of Vancouver, Canada. To give you a more direct Polish example - from our last discussion - District XVIII Nowa Huta of Kraków has a number of the so called "obszary" (former villages) and "osiedla" listed at pl:Szablon:Dzielnica XVIII Nowa Huta. The question is, how should we name our "osiedla" in English to avoid further mistakes of this kind? --Poeticbent talk 18:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've seen the word "neighbourhood" used (as in Category:Neighbourhoods of Warsaw). Though there are actually two meanings (at least) of "osiedle" - if it means something like a specific housing development than I would call it "estate" (though I think that's British English). In the case of Białystok I'm not sure it's so wrong to call them districts - they seem to be the top-level divisions of the city, so in fact similar to the dzielnice of Kraków, just with a different name. (But maybe there's some difference I'm not aware of.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the article in Polish Wikipedia called pl:Podział administracyjny Białegostoku. It clearly states that the 28 divisions are not called "dzielnice", but "osiedla". Apparently, the city is not large enough to have its own administrative divisions known as "dzielnice" in the Polish administrative law similar to Kraków and Warsaw. I don't think we have to stick to American English in this instance, because British "estates" seem to describe "osiedla" better in the European context. However, if we were to create a new merged article for Białystok similar to Districts of Kraków, it should be named Neighborhoods of Białystok, because it includes not only "osiedla" (estates), but also the so called "obszary" (former villages). --Poeticbent talk 19:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about how best to resolve this. Please take a look at the following draft, based on the corresponding article in Polish Wikipedia, with my proposed translation for a possible series of similar articles about other cities.

Podział administracyjny Białegostoku
Administrative division of Białystok

What do you think? --Poeticbent talk 01:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. You can actually link osiedle, since we have a short article on it (written mainly by me). By the way, can you have a look at my move request on Kraków - Stare Miasto? Am I right in thinking the article is strictly about the Old Town neighbourhood, and that Dzielnica I Stare Miasto is something larger (and therefore not the subject of the article)? If so, then the section of Districts of Kraków should also be rewritten to make that clear.--Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this new article I created hoping that we could use the same format also for other Polish cities divided into osiedla (rather than dzielnice): Administrative division of Białystok. Feedback appreciated. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article is good (I just made a few small changes). By the way, are you happy now about moving Kraków - Stare Miasto to Kraków Old Town? I looked at some street maps and there's definitely a difference between Dzielnica I Stare Miasto and the old town district itself (which the article is about).--Kotniski (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Kraków

The article Kraków - Stare Miasto was originally created as part of a series of stubs on all districts of Krakow. It was expanded many times since, even though most other districts (except Nowa Huta) were never developed beyond that point. The further expansion of Stare Miasto concentrated on the cultural significance of the Old Town. So, I suppose, the proper title of our article (in its present form) could be changed accordingly. On top of that, we already have a fairly new, separate article called the Districts of Kraków where Administrative District No. 1 Stare Miasto is included, but not yet properly described. The problem is, I don’t know what the actual difference is in terms of territorial boundaries of both. According to the official map provided by Urząd Miasta Krakowa at Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej - BIP (please take a look) Stare Miasto and the Old Town are identical. --Poeticbent talk 17:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That map seems to show the obszar of Stare Miasto. It certainly isn't the same as Dzielnica I, which includes that area plus several others which can be clearly seen to be outside it, such as Piaski and Nowy Świat. You can check with the Polish article pl:Dzielnica I Stare Miasto and at http://www.dzielnica1.krakow.pl/ . --Kotniski (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What I see is that Dzielnica I and the Old Town as we know it, don't match. The boundaries of Stare Miasto as defined by BIP (see above) don't include Kleparz for example. Meanwhile, the Royal Road in Kraków extends into Kleparz and than further up across Jan Matejko Square towards the Polytechnic. So, the Old Town includes more than a single district from the modern tourist perspective. --Poeticbent talk 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
But you realise that the BIP map is not of Dzielnica I? I suppose there are really three entities: (a)Dzielnica I Stare Miasto; (b) the obszar of Stare Miasto as shown on the BIP map (basically the area within the old city walls); and (c) the tourist's old town (which doesn't necessarily have any constant defined boundaries). Certainly (a) is considerably larger than (b), and then (c) is somewhere in between them (but closer to (b), probably). I think the article in question is basically about (b), or possibly stretching into (c) - but it certainly isn't about (a).--Kotniski (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Waszcz

Mispelled? Can't find it on pl wiki... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

WP:Terms of use

Any thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:Terms_of_use#Category discussion? You were involved in discussions recently on that talk page. (Watchlisting). - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend, and a productive 2010. It was pleasure to collaborate with you in 2009, hope to work with you also in 2010. - Darwinek (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrative changes in Poland

Hello buddy! There will be a lot of important administrative changes since 1.1.2010 in Poland. Hundreds of villages will change their names, new gmina will be created, several villages will be promoted to towns etc. etc. See this article in RP. Do you think it will be possible for Kotbot to apply changes to en wiki if a detailed list of changes would be provided? - Darwinek (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes, obviously we'd want to make these changes. Most of them can be done manually I think; the only one that might require bot help would be the renaming of 300+ villages. If a list becomes available I'll see what I can do.--Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The link to proper legislation is here (in pdf). - Darwinek (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Reverting

I guess we were both reverting Special:Contributions/84.22.63.134's vandalism to Talk:Gore. I didn't mean to revert it back, but it just happened because I think you were slightly quicker than me at that user's vandalism. Sorry for the inconvenience. --DragonofFire (龙火) 18:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem; it happens sometimes.--Kotniski (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kotniski/Archive_4&oldid=1166522365"