Jump to content

User talk:Kotniski/Archive 5

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

Viceroy

I don't know why BilCat was going in and deleting 50% of the article including referenced sections. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Stronghold Poznań

Witam. Dziękuję za rozbudowę tego hasła. Wstawiłem stub'a licząc, że ktoś kto dobrze zna angielski zajmie się nim i nie musiałem długo czekać :-) Artykuł mocno się rozrósł, co mnie bardzo cieszy! Jeszcze raz dzięki, pozdrawiam Rzuwig► 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nie ma sprawy, będę jeszcze nad tym pracować (informacje czerpię oczywiście z polskiej WP). Jest to ciekawy temat dla mnie - mieszkam w Poznaniu dość długo i dopiero się dowiaduję o takiej historii... Pozdrawiam,--Kotniski (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Na enwiki odpowiada się na swojej stronie dyskusji? Trochę dziwnie ;-) Jeżeli chcesz się dowiedzieć więcej o tym temacie to zapraszam na moją stronę, tam mam trochę fotografii starego Poznania, a także jestem członkiem HKMFIE - organizacji skupiającej miłośników fortyfikacji. Jeżeli interesuje Cię temat to zapraszam również do lektury naszego forum dyskusyjnego (dostęp również z mojej strony www). W razie wątpliwości merytorycznych chętnie służę pomocą. Pozdrawiam Rzuwig► 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No róźni użytkownicy mają różne preferencje co do tego, gdzie się odpowiada (do tego służy ten różowy banner na górze;) ) Dzięki za linki, na pewno skorzystam. Mam nadzieję, że nie masz nic przeciwko temu że zmieniłem nazwę artykułu - inne podobne artykuły mają tytuły "X Fortress", a zdaje mi się, że "Stronghold Poznań" (o ile się używa) odnosi się raczej do nazistowskiego pojęcia "Festung" niż do samych fortyfikacji. Nie ukrywam, że brakuje mi angielskich odpowiedników na niektóre terminy techniczne (takie jak szyja, nadszaniec itp.), więc jeśli przypadkiem coś wiesz na ten temat, to chętnie bym się dowiedział... --Kotniski (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
W kwestii nazewnictwa obiektów - to Poznań Citadel też bym zmienił na: Fort Winiary, ale przydałoby się więcej informacji nt. samego fortu. Cytadela, to nazwa potoczna oraz nazwa parku. Natomiast pierwotna nazwa była Fort Winiary. Rzuwig► 19:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Myślę że artykuł o parku ma teraz dobrą, rozpoznawalną nazwę (może nawet być polska forma: Cytadela (Poznań), ale Poznań Citadel jest zgodne z Warsaw Citadel). Nawet poznaniacy raczej nie kojarzą Fortu Winiary, ale wszyscy wiedzą gdzie jest Cytadela. Gdybyśmy napisali osobny artykuł o samym forcie, to owszem trzeba go nazwać Fort Winiary.--Kotniski (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Tylko, że Warsaw Citadel ma swój odpowiednik: pl:Cytadela Warszawska, natomiast odpowiednikiem cytadeli poznańskiej - jest Fort Winiary... Osobiście uważam, że to on powinien być tytułem hasła, a przekierowanie mogło by przecież być (?) Rzuwig► 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Romanian communes

Are you still up for this or not? Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes... in principle. I haven't been able to run my bot lately for technical reasons, but that should be resolved now. I'm working on something else at the moment, but I should be able to come back to these communes in a couple of weeks.--Kotniski (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I could volunteer to run KotBot for you again if you'd like. I can set it on a dedicated computer to run constantly at a low rate. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll be in touch when needed (but I might manage on my own as this is probably quite a small run).--Kotniski (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Centralizing discussion

I see a discussion at one of the village pumps and at the Arb filing. Are these the only other two? If there are others, can you point them out to me? I'd like to centralize discussion into one, easy-to-find place. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There was also discussion at WT:PROD and WT:CSD, possibly elsewhere - this topic seems to be breaking out all over the place.--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
In fact, there seem to be more and more being advertised (e.g. at VPP and VPR) - I can't keep track. Good luck with centralizing them.--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Search help

Hi Kotniski. Thanks for the reminder about adding the help links to the search page. I have now added that. See also the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-exists#Request.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for helping to improve the article on Ewa Gorzelak-Dziduch. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Wikipedia:Categorization

Dear Kotniski: There's a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Categorization about the content and/or presentation of the guideline, especially Subcategorization and the Duplicate categorization rule. It looks like you added that text, so maybe you could help us understand what you meant in those sections. Have a nice day, and please respond on either the guideline's talk page or my talk page.
PS: The discussion is in Inclusion of articles in (distinguished) ancestor categories.
—Codrdan (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark

My opinion is that it is not acceptable for one editor to change the words of another editor, in fact it is extremely rude, especially when done repeatedly. However, as noted previously, "not that my opinion is worth anything". Loosmark changed my words and then after I had changed them back to he reverted without bothering to discuss. My understanding is that he was warned against doing that exact thing. Whether my understanding is correct and if it it, whether the person who warned him wishes to do anything are both things out of our control.Varsovian (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

People change talk page section titles from time to time; it's not like editing someone else's actual posts. He wasn't the only one objecting to the title anyway. Well, having said the issue is not worth talking about, I'm not going to talk about it any more, but I hope that in the interests of fruitful and pleasant cooperation you will both let the matter drop.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Romania

Hi! How are you? Glad you have a little time spare on this now. Basically see the diff. Infoboxes need to be added, with maps if possible with referenced data to the official site as shown. It should list the population of every commune in Romania on that ssite which I think the bot could probably extract the data and insert it into the infobox with everyone you add. Note also that often the population data in the intro to the article is wrong so the bot may also need to correct it with the figure on the official statistics site. Do you follow? I did Arad County and started on Alba, Brazii, Arad is where I left off -Z and then go through each county and ensure that all have infoboxes and population figure and ensure that the initial figure given meets that of the official site. This is defaintely a job for a bot which is why iI've left it and have been doing countries like Nigeria manually! ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's cool. I'm sure you can see how it works with a different page for every commune. Regards. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 08:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Poles in Lithuania

I've responded to your edit summary at the talk page of the Polish minority in Lithuania in a little more depth there. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Monarchial titles

We're just going in circles. You're not gonna convince me, nor I you. I'm gonna sit back & let others have their say, as I imagine we've been causing some 'edit conflicts'. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--Kotniski (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Help at Dobrzyca?

I'm in need of a little help at this article in the history section. Please look at the two sentences marked for clarification. Maybe with a look at the Polish version of the article you can untangle this? Thanks. LilHelpa (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a shot at it. LilHelpa (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Romanian communes

Hi. Any luck with coding the bot? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds promising. Always quite difficult in finding the entirety of communes. I have tremendous trouble with African districts because they keep creating new ones and its difficult to keep track of what has been split!! Completely disrupts population and maps! As long as the majority can be sorted and referenced and the maps added this will be a massive improvement. Still wishing we could evolve the wikipedias into one in different languages as you once proposed, it would take me over a thousand years to transwiki all of the current missing content... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 15:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

0RR

Ah, you were testing to see if I would revert you. That's funny. Thank you. James470 (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian communes

Excellent. Look forward to seeing it in action. Do you plan on adding them Fântânele, Arad? Can you leave empty parameters for the commune maps and pushpin map? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 12:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Hello, Kotniski. You have new messages at Alan Liefting's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

thank you

Thank you for your help at:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#if_then_parser_functions_.2F_magic_words happy editing. Okip 09:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for your help at:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#if_then_parser_functions_.2F_magic_words happy editing. Okip 09:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Nomination for deletion

A template you created has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –xenotalk 14:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

no real doubt

there is no real doubt in this case? Indeed, there is no real doubt that Johann Dzierzon was a citizen of Prussia who published in German. Silesia was not Polish for half a millenium before his birth, and would only become Polish half a century after his death. There was no Polish state during his lifetime. Kotniski, I used to consider you a reasonable editor, unlike too many Polish editors here. Have you now been infected with the Polish nationality rabies of Serafin and his sockpuppet circus? -- Matthead  Discuß   20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, this isn't about states or citizenships or language of publication, it's about nationality/ethnicity - and in that regard he was clearly Polish (at least, that's what the sources show).--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so your are now acting like Serafin. EoD with you. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how Serafin acts. If it's one of these Polish nationalist POV pushers, then it's you who's acting that way (with German in place of Polish). I'm just trying to maintain a good and objective encyclopedia, though with little chance of succeeding when I'm up against people like you and him.--Kotniski (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Infoboxes

Hi Kotniski. Excellent job on Romanian commune. All done? There is one more long standing problem. Most of the Category:Municipalities of Spain. either don't have infoboxes or they have awful grey ones/geoboxes or are missing vital information or are out of date and should be replaced. I wondered if you could create a Spanish municipality template infobox and use your bot to copy the infoboxes (which are consistent) directly from Spanish wikipedia and insert them into the articles. We want the infobox of every Spanish municipality to look like Burgos for example (although it will be necessary to also copy the municipal locators too. See Monda for example and the Spanish wikipedia infobox. Many of them are like this and the best thing would be to copy directly from spanish wikipedia although it would be neccessary forall infoboxes to read the coordinates and display the pushpin_map=Spain.. However given the existing infobox mess for Spain your bot would be best overiding much of what we have currently unless it has been edited by Plastikspork who I believe did make a good start converting but didn't finish it and I've also sorted out the top 20 cities I think.... You;ll find that many of them have infoboxes like Navas de San Juan but evne these would be best overidden with spanish wiki infoboxes which have the 2009 census details, more information and coordinates/maps. If you take into account this and the missing infoboxes then I think it will be the majority needing copying and replacing. Let me know if this would be straightforward and you could do it. At a later date then a bot can convert the parameters to infobox settlement. But for now copying the spanish infoboxes would be extremely useful as consistency is the main thing lacking from these articles at present. If you are up for the task, can you speak to User:Plastikspork and discuss what he has already done so you don't overide his work and discuss creating a Template:Infobox Spanish municipality to accomplish this task. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My script basically merged information from the Spanish Wikipedia with the existing infobox, like this. I would say that if you don't want to undo my edits, you could start by only considering pages without {{Infobox settlement}}. I believe all the ones with {{Infobox settlement}} are fine, but I could be wrong. The major work in automating the process for me was writing some language translation for fields like "founded" dates. My script is basically semi-automated, in that I visually inspect the translations to make sure they are correct before committing changes. Numerical data is much easier since it doesn't need translation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The ones like Navas de San Juan Infobox city need to be overidden though. If you are certain that such out of date infoboxes are not infobox_settlement... Some provinces may need inspection first to assess the situation. From what I've seen though I'd say the majority of even existing infoboxes like the one in Navas need overiding. Unless the infobox looks like the ones Plastik has done already with infobox settlement of course... Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand - why can't we just keep on using Plastikspork's script?--Kotniski (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

He's got like most countries on his to do list that's why... Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So we can use his script, we just need more hands on the manual part of the task, is that correct? (Incidentally, I haven't quite finished with Romania yet - I've done the communes, but not the towns, for which I wanted to get some terminology sorted out first - see Municipiu.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. See User:Plastikspork/todo!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Zastanow sie co robisz dla kraju w ktorym mieszkasz

Look, I do not understand you comment "Wiadomosci nalezy umieszczac na stronie XXX not User:XXX. I just put my questions on you "Discussion" and you removed it. I see you are not Polish so it is easy for you to diminish Polish heritage. I definitely think you should not operate on sign "Poland WikiProject" because this. For example if I am imigrant to USA and Canada I do not pretend to be expert in Canada history and politics on Wikipedia pages. Usunieta zostala bardzo wazna kwestje ze strony Dzierzon przy Twoje pomocy. Dzierzon czul sie Polakiem. Sam fakt ze pochodzil z rodziny Polskiej jest pomniejszaniem i przekretem. W ten sposob Niemcy moga mowic ze byl kim innym, a nie byl. To dobrze juz wiesz bo Heaqwe Ci tlumaczyl. Ja spedzilem olbrzymia ilosc czas studiujac Jego zycie i publikacje razem z Serafin i jego pomocy. Zauwaz ze najwczesniejszy wersja artykulu mowila wyraznie "POLISH" i tak bylo zdecydowana wiekszosc czasu. To bardzo niegrzeczne. Jesli jestes imigrantem, zyjesz w Polsce a dzialasz na szkode kraju w ktorym zyjesz. Wszedles w konflikt i upierales sie ze wiesz co robisz a nie znasz zyciorysu Dzierzona i specyfiki Slaska. Powinienes pytac i wspolpracowac z Heaqwe, a ucieszyl Cie fakt ze go zablokowano. --64.7.140.82 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To daj informacje z dobrymi źródłami i na pewno wejdzie do artykułu. Wasze opinie jako takie nie wejdą albo przynajmniej nie zostaną tam długo. To takie osoby jak Serafin i Heaqwe szkodzą Polsce, bo przez ich zachowanie Polacy mają opinię uprzedzonych nacjonalistów w Wikipedii, co bardzo ułatwia życie antypolskim edytorom.--Kotniski (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

1. To nie jest wywazona opinia o uprzedzonych polskich nacionalistach. Zobacz jak Niemcy wprowadzaja swoje prowokacje i nacionalistyczne punkty. To co napisales o uprzedzonych nacionalistach mowi mi ze nie jestes takim Brytyjczykiem jak piszesz. Sugeruje mi to ze jestes rodowitym Polakiem, ktory nie ma prawdziwych doswiadczen poza granicami a postepuje wedlug miary: "Cudze chwalicie swego nie znacie"

2. Juz zauwazylem co Fryce powpisywali do artykulu. Powoluja sie na zrodla od jakiegos dr. Lubina co w zadnym wypadku nie moze byc prawdziwym cytatem. Zablokowali Serafina i innych a teraz maluja kolorowymi klamstwami. Nalezy zadac zrodel historycznych do tych wydumanego (cytaj klamliwego cytatow: 'My name and my parents' tradition indicate that I am a Pole. All my education and culture are deeply rooted in German culture.' W zadnym wypadku Dzierzon nie powiedzial: ' All my education and culture are deeply rooted in German culture.' Dr. Michał Lubina - jesli taki istnieje - musi sie z tego wytlumaczyc. Takze dr.L slowa: "We are of course aware that since the mid-19th century, Poles emphasized that the father belonged to Polish culture. Germans did not react to this at all." swiadcza o jego sklonnoisciach germanizacyjnych - zapomina co to byla era Bismarka. Niemcy byli arogantcy i uparci w swoich przesladowaniach. To nie jest trudne do stwierdzenia.

3. Sprawe z ust Dzierzona miales wyjasniona przez Heaqwe: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Heaqwe&diff=346064460&oldid=345900617

Nie ma lepszego dowodu niz ten ze byl Polakiem. Wezwij tych Niemcow do podania slow ze Dzierzon uwazal sie za Niemca. Niech podadza cytat ze slow Dzierzona. Sprawa jest prosta: NIE MA TAKIEGO CYTATU. Na: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Heaqwe&diff=346064460&oldid=345900617 masz tez podanych najwazniejszych autorow polskich ktorzy dyskutuja polskos Dzierzona. Zrodla drugiego rzutu - dlaczego trzeba wnioskowac Dzierzon jest Polakiem masz podane w wersji ktora mozesz jeszcze pamietac jesli uwazasz co sie dziej: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Dzier%C5%BCon&diff=351428316&oldid=351427361 Teraz dzieki Twojej ugodowosci mamy to wszystko wymazane. Serafin pamieta jak pomogl upor i solidarnosc Polskich edytorow w pzreszlosci. To Twoja postawa szkodzi. Zacheca do wkrecenia sie na polskie pozycje. --Kutyhj (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say thanks for your very welcome addition to Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Nastepne informacje

Tutaj masz link do cz. 1 artykulu. http://www.pasieka.pszczoly.pl/index.php?s=vjufile&grkat=archiwalne_pasieki&artplik=2006_06_tomaszewski.html Na samym wstepie masz: “Dzierżon, ks. pleban w Karlsmarkt, w Górnym Szląsku, powiecie brzeskim, uznając się za Polaka, tem samem i jego metoda do pszczolnictwa polskiego należy.” Autorka nie podaje zrodla, a jest to cytat z XIX-cznej encyklopedii, wspolczesny Dzierzoniowi.

W tresci drugiej czesci masz slowa wspomniane przez H… http://www.pasieka.pszczoly.pl/index.php?s=vjufile&grkat=archiwalne_pasieki&artplik=2007_01_tomaszewski.html “Co do mej narodowości, jestem oczywiście, jak już samo moje nazwisko mówi, Polakiem z urodzenia,…” --Kutyhj (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On: http://www.deutsch-polnischer-journalistenpreis.de/subpage.php?article_id=407 Mozesz obejrzec clip z zapisem slow Dr. Michał Lubina uwazam ze jet to dowolna i zupelnie niescisla interpretacja slynnych slow; "Co do mej narodowości, jestem oczywiście …

Oto masz kontakt do autorki filmu z wypowiedzia dr. M. Lubina. Nizej masz moj e-mail do niej.

ww.kudyba.pl teresa@kudyba.pl Teresa Kudyba Produkcja Telewizyjna i Filmowa Film-und Fernsehproduktion "tress-FILM"

tel. kom / Händy 0048-602374494 tel. 0048-77 4219374

Szanowna Pani, Obejrzalem Pani film na http://www.deutsch-polnischer journalistenpreis.de "Prawda ponad wszystko" Na wypowiedzi w tym filmie powoluja sie nacionalisci niemiecy probujacy udowodnic niemieckisc ks. Jana Dzierzona. Dotyczy to zwlaszcza wypowiedzi Dr. Michał Lubina: "All my education and culture are deeply rooted in German culture." "Cala moja edukacja jest gleboko zakorzeniona w niemieckiej kulturze"

Przypszczam ze jest to bardzo dowolna, wrecz falsyzwa interpretacja slow Dzierzona: "Co do mej narodowości, jestem oczywiście, jak już samo moje nazwisko mówi, Polakiem z urodzenia, gdyż na Górnym Śląsku mówi się po polsku. A że od 10 roku życia znalazłem się we Wrocławiu i tam studiowałem, stałem się Niemcem z wykształcenia. Ale nauka nie uznaje granic ani narodowości"

Nie widze tutaj zadnego "glebokiego zakozrenienia", ja widze tu tylko twierdzenie ze edukacja nie zmienia czy tworzy nowej narodowosci.

Mam do Pani goraca prosbe. Chcialbym spytac dr. Lubina skad wzial to "glebokie zakorzenienie"

Z powazaniem

Teraz przekonaj sie na co powoluja sie nasi "oponenci", zadne tam naukowe wywody czy ksiazki napisane po latach studjow. Zwylke bla, bal kogos komu cos sie tam wydaje ze slyszal i wie. --Kutyhj (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC) PS. Cala ta Wikipedia mnie wkurza. Powazni ludzie pracuja i spinaja prawde w calosc a gowniarze przyjda i osiusiaja wszystko glupota.

Na koniec zapytaj sie swoich niemieckich przyjaciol dlaczego na wersji niemieckiej nie ma nic o pochodzeniu Dzierzona z rodziny polskiej. Wpisali Slazak i nic nie zamierzaja zmienic. Powinni napisac ze zyl na Slasku a pochodzil z rodziny polskiej, ale wola Slazak zeby utrzymywac ze Slazak to nie Polak. Ot Slazak to taki sam Niemiec jak Bawarczyk. Cos tu nie gra z ich dokladnoscia i internacionalizmem. Jak im wolno przekrecac fakty to dlaczego uwazasz ze Serafinowi i Heaqwe nie wolno bronic narodowych wartosci i prawdy. Hm? kolego logika to dzial matematyki. Stan po stronie faktow i prawdy a nie wpychaj kosmopolitycznego siana.--Kutyhj (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Jak masz watpliwosci ze Jan Dzierzon uwazal sie za Polaka to moge Ci przeslac skany ksiazek Brozka, ks. Mazaka etc. To sa juz "public domain" - tak mysle. Pozniej mozesz spytac w muzeum w Kluczborku o autorytet tych autorow. Jak juz to wszystko zrobisz i przekonasz sie ze zabijasz prawde swoim postepowaniem to zacznij naprawiac to co zepsules i przepros kogo trzeba.--Kutyhj (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nie wiem jaki masz problem z artykułem teraz. Pisze że jest z polskiej rodziny (to samo jest napisane w polskiej Wikipedii); w notatkach jest cytat że uważa się za Polaka z urodzenia - ale sprawa widocznie nie jest tak jednoznaczna, skoro w innym kontekście opisał swoją narodowość jako śląską. Przepraszam, ale zdaje się że masz obsesję na tym punkcie i nie potrafisz patrzeć na niego z neutralnego puntku widzenia. Nawet gdybym się zgadzał, i tak takie rzeczy nie pozostaną długo w artykule.--Kotniski (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

1. W polskiej Wikipedii nikt o zdrowwych zmyslach nie bedzie wyciagal wnioskow ze ks. Dzierzon majac rodzicow Polakow zniemczyl sie i wyrzekl narodowosci.

2. W ktorym miejscu opisla swoja narodowosc jako slaka? To bzdura nikt na Slasku w czasach Jana Dzierzona nie mial idei ze istnieje taka narodowos w sensie separacji od Polski. Jesli by tak zrobil ze okreslal sie jako Slazak to w separacji od Prus i podkreslajac przynaleznosc do regionu ktory rdzennie jest Polski. Ze takim jest to chyba wiesz. Zanim sie pojawil na tych ziemiach jakikolwiek Niemiec istnalo tam juz panstwo Polskie.

3. Nie mam obsesji jak twierdzisz. Czytalem prawie wszystkie ksiazki wydane w Polsce na temat Jana Dzierzona. Wyjatek stanowi wydana w 1985 r. "Polskie pamiatki rodu Dzierzow". Wszystko mnie przekonalo ze Dzierzon a) niecierpial Niemcow - czemu sie nie dziwie znajac epoke Bismarka z literatury i opowiesci. b) chcial zachowac polkosc dla rodziny i regionu. Kontaktowalismy sie tez z Muzeum w Kluczborku aby rozwiac watpliwosci czy autorzy nie przesadzaja na modle komunistyczna.

W konkluzji powiem Ci tak: pomijajac sprawe zlodziejstwa wartosci narodowych przez podstepnych niemiaszkow etc., sprawa emocionalna jest ze czlowiek o takim duchu, wiedzy jest teraz pozbawiany Jego najwiekszej wartosci emocionalnej. Ucierpial przez Niemcow przez cale zycie. Niemcy deptali jego rodzinna ziemie i religie, a teraz chca z niego zrobic Niemca albo separatyste. Uzyc Jego imienia do zgloszenia zadan do ziemi ktora tak zniszczyli. Nie chodzi o mnie albo o Polske nawet w polowie. Dzierzon sie w grobie przewraca i ja to czuje, bo gdyby ze mnie ktos chcial zrobic czesc narodu ktorego gleboko nielubie to bym sie z trumny chcial podniesc. Jednym slowem to skandal. Bardziej juz rozumie ataki na narodowosc Kopernika. My musimy to z Dzieronem naprawic bo jako pszczelarze czujemy sie podwojnie solidarni. ON BYL POLAKIEM! --Kutyhj (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Teraz masz co rezultaty. Matthead z Future Perfect at Sunrise 1) Zablokowali Kutyhj chociaz nic nie wprowadzil do angielskiej wersji oprocz korespondencji do Ciebie 2) Denerwuje ich kolorowa wersja portretu bo Dzierzon przypial bialo-czerwqona kokarde na sercu. Sprawdz co im przeszkadza 3) Zmienili tlumaczenie w przypisach chociaz w orginale artykuly jest “become” zmienili na “ I am” 4) Matthead probowal zmienic wpis Aserafin na Ppolskiej wersji, chociaz to jest niepodwazalnym faktem ze wymienieni autorzy pisali w okreslony sposob. Oczekuje na Twoja reakcje --Begasnui (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Musze przeprosic, myslalem ze chcesz na polskiej Wikipedi zmieniac to co zostalo wpisane przez innych, a dotyczy narodowosc. Przepraszam. --Kutyhj (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010


Imie i nazwisko Dzierzona zostalo zmieniona na Johann Dzierzon, to jest pisownia niemiecka. Britanica podaje Jan Dzierżoń (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175400/Jan-Dzierzon) i tak powinno byc. Rowniez tu (http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=bees;idno=5017629) angielskie tlumaczenie pracy Dzierzona podaje Dzierżon, Jan. Tak czy inaczej Ty jestes winny calej tej checy. Przez lata bylo tak jak powinno byc. Zamiast wesprzec silnie wlasciwa wersje zaczeles wspierac niemiecke przekrety. Czy skontaktowales sie z museum w Kluczborku, albo przeczytales dowody i fotokopie w podanych pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka? Nie odpowiadasz na nasze notatki na Twojej stronie. Moja rada jest, jesli chcesz zachowac czyste sumienie, przeczytaj i sprawdz podane zrodla polskie. Pomijanie zrodel polskich jest niedopuszczalne. Ci ktorzy chca zmieniac artykul powinni uznac ich wage a nie lawirowac na drugorzednych przekladach i niepelnych zrodlach. Podane tez sa wspolczesne artykuly w prasie polskiej i napisane przez Polakow. Trzeba je wniesc do tekstu. Niech chociaz bedzie widoczne ze spoleczenstwo polskie ma silne zdanie na ten temat. Podaje Ci e-mail jezeli chcesz powaznie pracowac bez udzialu szpiegow: erudra@hotmail.com. --Soujdspo (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bierz zawsze pod uwage ze: 1) w okresie Bismarck'a zniemczano imiona celowo 2) Poszukiwania liczbowe zapisu imion na internecie sa falszywka - autorzy wtedy i dzisiaj powtarzaja to co zostalo zniemczone i wprowadzone w pismie, clowo, przez nieuwage lub niewiedze. Jedyna droga czy jego imie powinno byc pisane Jahann czy Jan jest stwierdzenie ze Dzierzon uwazal sie za Polaka i kultywowal polskos, i tak jest zgodnie z dokumentami opisanymi w pracach Brozka, Gladysza i ks. Mazaka etc. --Soujdspo (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Louis Philippe I, King of the French

Kotniski,

Please go to this [1] for what I found on the reason for the use of "I".

Next: "to hyphen or not to hyphen, that is the question."

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GLOWGOW

Thanks.[2] 74.178.230.17 (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Nomination for deletion of Template:Polish2

Template:Polish2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Kotniski. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Barnstar

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
With thanks for your excellent clean-up of Wikipedia:Edit warring, and for your efforts in general to keep pages succinct and clear. SlimVirgin talk contribs 11:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Policies

We seem to share some common ground on policy vs essays, and having a unified policy. As this has come up several times, I've created User:Stephen_B_Streater/Policy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We do indeed seem to be of similar minds - I'd just created User:Kotniski/Neu. I think a serious effort needs to be made to persuade people to allow policy to be come shorter and clearer, as I'm sure it deters and confuses new editors the way it is now. It isn't easy to persuade people though - they all love their scriptures...--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It's good. I'll suggest my ideas one at a time to give you the opportunity to revert, accept or merge each time. You are only one hour ahead, so this should work. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
OK - I won't necessarily be online all the time, so just carry on making the changes you think fit - nothing can get lost;)--Kotniski (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In the light of the recent reversion at NPOV, perhaps this should move up the list of priorities! Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox settlement

Hello, Kotniski. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox settlement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Kotniski's Day!

User:Kotniski has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Kotniski's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Kotniski!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

May I be the first to congratulate you! Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You deserve all the recognition you can get! Have you given any thought to adminship? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's been suggested, but I don't feel any particular need to get involved in admin tasks (unless there's some major shortage, which I don't think is the case).--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Neutrality"

Your "netrality" thread at WT:NPOV reminded me of a similar issue for journalism (I'm a journalist).

But I expect that WP is at least too tied to the NPOV phrase to pursue your thinking very far. Maurreen (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true - but I'm more concerned about the way some of the text is phrased than the page title (which as you know, I don't think needs to exist as a separate page, and certainly not with the scope it has now). But as we've seen, it's hard to get anything changed around there... Cheers,--Kotniski (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Nomination for deletion of Template:Collapsible list expanded

Template:Collapsible list expanded has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Source?

You said "Basically this is a problem which Wikipedia editors have decided should not be fixed, because Wikipedia should not be allowed to be as good as some people would like it to be." Is that just an impression, or is it actually documented? Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's just my sardonic impression.--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"the anti-Polish gang"

When you accuse people of being 'anti-Polish' you are accusing them of being against people on the basis of their ethnicity. Therefore you are accusing them of being racists. Please don't. Varsovian (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Poles are not a race. I don't know why you and your colleague are so anti-Polish (as Wikipedia editors, at least), but I didn't think it was because of any racial characteristics. --Kotniski (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

ASF

I liked the re-write of ASF, but I'd suggest you start an RfC referencing the edit to gauge consensus of the community. That's the only way you'll get enough voices to counteract the one loud one.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the RfC. I hope that's okay; I didn't mean to step on your toes but thought it was worth making the change before too many drive-by opinions came in. Obviously feel free to fix if you think I've changed the context or intent of the request. Rvcx (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedia topic guidelines

I have nominated Category:Wikipedia topic guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Gnevin (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Personal Attacks

In so far as you've taken it upon yourself to censor what you believe to be violations of the policy of of no personal attacks, would you be so kind as to explain why you felt this remark [3], should remain on the Chopin Talk page. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Civility Award
Thank you for making our discussion pages less inflamed and more pleasant to read. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Assert facts

I'm about at my wit's end. I'm not sure this policy is ever going to straightened out. Rvcx (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Talkback

Hello, Kotniski. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names).
Message added 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Dąbie and other Polish places

I have re-redirected Dąbie (and Dabie) to Dąbie (disambiguation). I fixed all the incoming links except I am still working on Voivodeship road and I am sufficiently unsure of Polish–Ukrainian War, that I tagged it {{dn}}. I also put a {{dn}} tag after Babiak in Chelmno extermination camp. I could guess that both of these are Greater Poland, but those two are subject matter where I avoid guesswork. I found five of the existing links were wrong, and there may be more in the Voivodeship road article.

I realized on Monday that I had moved some pages without fixing the dab pages to point to the articles. I then changed Zagórze, but you had already made a different change I didn't grok. I eventually figured it out, and changed a page back, but somehow it didn't take. It all looks fine now. In most cases, you disambiguate with the highest level that works (eg, voivodeship). In this case, that's not unique, so I would go for county, but I could not see Silesia on that page. I think that dab page should be reformatted to look like most of the other dab pages. Not that the organization there is wrong, but I'm having trouble reading the ones like that. But anyway, how big is Zagórze, Sosnowiec? Why did it get special treatment for so long?  Randall Bart   Talk  02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Your edit summary

[4] Why can't the article repeat verbatim what that law says?

Because reliable sources have not connected the law to the subject of the article.--Kotniski (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the one which is quoted in the article as saying that the subject is "Polish-born". You know the source: it's the one you deleted. Varsovian (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about now? Where does that source connect that law to that person? And if it does (which it doesn't) then why not quote the source directly?--Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The source refers to Sawoniuk as "Polish-born" and he was born Polish because of the 1920 Polish citizenship law. His mother was Polish and that made him Polish because he didn't know who his father was, which may just explain why he described himself as being Polish! Varsovian (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know when you think he described himself as being Polish, but apparently the reason was to avoid being on the Nazi side when the war was lost. He is described as "Polish-born" because he was born within the borders of Poland. None of this has anything to do with any 1920 citizenship law. Or if it does, the sources don't make that connection, so nor do we.--Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source to confirm your stance on why he described himself as Polish? I see you still can't (or perhaps don't want to) understand that being born in Poland does not make one Polish-born. Varsovian (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You have now made your second accusation that I am editing in bad faith. Kindly refrain from doing and strike out your accusation on the WP:POLAND page or I will request that you are warned of DIGWUREN sanctions. Varsovian (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Kindly refrain from your obviously and consistently nationalistic-driven editing, which manifestly breaches all of Wikipedia's core policies. --Kotniski (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel that "your obviously and consistently nationalistic-driven editing" is in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL?
It's not mine, it's yours, but all right, I suppose those are two policies that it doesn't breach (the core policies I had in mind were NPOV, V, OR). --Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel that describing another editor's editing as "obviously and consistently nationalistic-driven editing" is in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? If you have concerns with me breaking any WP policy, please file a report on me. I am trying to give you the chance to avoid me filing one on you. Varsovian (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Everyone can see what sort of editor you are. I'm not interested in filing reports, but you should still be ashamed of what you're doing. --Kotniski (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What I'm doing? You mean putting sourced facts into an article? Or that I do not admit in my edit summaries that I am just making stuff up? Or that I'm not accusing other editors of bad faith editing? Varsovian (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That you're putting unsourced facts into an article, or dishonestly citing sources which don't support what you're writing, or putting off-topic information into an article just to smear a particular nation that you seem to have something against. (OK, you are putting some sourced information in as well, so I'm not saying you're all bad, but... well, it's hardly surprising that people object in stronger and stronger terms when you unashamedly do things that you must know full well by now are not right for Wikipedia.) Anyway, goodnight for today, maybe we'll find ways of cooperating more fruitfully tomorrow.--Kotniski (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could be so kind as to point out the unsourced facts which I am inserting into an article. The article now has some 19 sources. Please read WP:MOSBIO, it states that nationality and ethnicity should be included in the opening paragraph, so you can drop your tired accusations of racism ("a particular nation that you seem to have something against" = 'anti-Polish' = 'racist'). Varsovian (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

report

Hello, I have reported user:Varsovian to the AE board here [5]. Since it also concerns some comments he made here I am notifying you as well.  Dr. Loosmark  21:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ASF

Myślę, że zmieni się nie do ASF ją poprawić. QuackGuru (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Można wyjaśnić powód zmiany rozumieniu ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you really want me to answer in Polish?--Kotniski (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply after 10 days

About 3RR. Sorry it took me so long. — Sebastian 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

typo

my typo; thanks ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Chopin example

Note that I mentioned your Chopin example as part of a proposed principle within a current ArbCom case: [6]. Feel free to correct me (in the "Comment by others" section) if I got it wrong. Rvcx (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"if he didn't know who he was, he could easily have "met" him"

Good catch, thanks. I was going on what one of the sources said, but now you point it out.... Varsovian (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

NPOV

I don't see consensus for you to alter the original meaning of ASF. I don't see consensus for this edit. For example, you have ignored the discussion about the heading name "Different points of view". QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments such as revert back to version befrore clearly anti-consensus edits by disruptive editor do not help build a consensus. -- PBS (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, can you show me how you got consensus by not participating in the discussion on the talk page about Different points of view for example. There is a disccusion about the heading on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any consensus for any particular heading; since there seems to be no need to have a heading there at all (apart from the higher-level heading that's already there), I think it's best if we leave it out until we can find one that at least two people agree on. But feel free to raise it at the talk page again.--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the talk page discussion there seems to be consensus to rename the section. I made a proposal a long time ago but you never participated in the dicussion. You edit does not match your edit summary. Please show consensus for the major alteration to the meaning of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

The lead is biased. Stop pushing the BdV POV.Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

I am not upset at all, but I do think your remarks should be milder

Regarding this, I do think it is not helping your cause, and is likely to offend people that you seem to not be listening. Whenever you see longstanding editors thoughtfully trying to address your concerns, it is not wise to conclude that they are not using logic. It is safer and kinder to assume that you've simply not understood the issues. Asking questions is better than attacking others. We are all human, of course, and we can all fail at this from time to time, and I wouldn't have mentioned it, but your edit summary seemed to be seeking advice on how you are presenting yourself. I hope this is in some small way helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, message taken. But it is very frustrating to be continually making a good logical case about a way to make Wikipedia better, only to see it shot down with arguments that I can see patently make no sense. --Kotniski (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Flora

Kotniski. I suggest that you look at the talk pages of WP:NC (flora), I think you will find it instructive. I and several other people argued long and hard that the wording of the flora guideline was incompatible with the policy page, however a majority on that page would not agree to any change to the guideline. Given that most people once forced into a position are for emotional reasons there was no point in pursuing it further at the time. The points had been made, but there was not going to be a consensus. So I stopped arguing on that talk page as it was obvious that it was a wast of time for everyone involved.

However a year later one of the main protagonists who had argued long and hard against change, altered the page so that by an large it is compatible with the policy page. Now I suspect that if I had continued to press the point then that change would not have stuck, because too many editors would have invested too much time arguing against such a change to agree to it. Now in my opinion the flora guideline has some way to go, but it is far closer to the generally agreed norms than it was (although I think if you look at the two points used to reinforce scientific names you will see another reason for my recent edits to the policy).

As flora did, the WP:NC (names and titles) has a formalistic approach, and like flora the formula agrees with reliable sources in most cases. So although it may make mistakes occasionally (for I would guess <5% of article) it is not very detrimental to the project. We made a significant change to the WP:NC (names and titles) article when we changed the introduction earlier this year, but at the moment I think your insistence on pressing this issue is counter productive to the changes you wish to make. So I suggest that you leave the talk page alone for the next quarter year, or even longer, unless someone else suggest making changes you either agree with or disagree with and even then let others take the lead. If you carry on as you are doing at the moment you will not get any changes made, and you are likely to end up having to argue an WP:RFC/U as some other editors are clearly getting very agitated. -- PBS (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so - the agitation is mostly just defensiveness, from people who find their long-held beliefs to be without rational foundation when challenged. But I will doubtless leave it alone again after some time. (I still don't understand how a common-name champion like yourself can be so reluctant to support my proposals - why worry about the diacritics on Zurich and Krakow, when we have the thoroughly unrecognizable monstrosities that the royalty/nobility convention - sometimes - produces.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant Idea Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For your brilliant solution to WP:PED! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And one from me as well. Thanks for taking the initiative and handling the matter with grace and sensitivity on Child protection. Minor4th • talk 20:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Question: wouldn't it be better to simply move the page to the new location and then you can re-apply your edits to it. Then the history will be kept together. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe. I'll leave it for others to work out; I don't have time at the moment to get involved in the detail.--Kotniski (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay I have done this time. A request for next time if this ever happens: please propose a move of the page and then all the history can be moved over together. It would be much simpler than creating a new page and then proposing a redirect :) Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi names

I believe it would be better to give the brief Nazi name in the main text,rather than in the lead, along with explanation. Also the problem is that if we give Nazi names in the lead-we will have to give them to all Polish cities(due to WW2). Another issue is that those names aren't exactly very historical and describe a brief but special period.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
That you for using your initiative to solve the problem at Wikipedia:Child protection and for doing something useful while others were arguing. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


The Redirect Barnstar
For creating Edit war and tidily solving the cross-namespace redirect. I'm not the first to say this, but thanks for taking the initiative. sonia♫♪ 10:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the barnstars - I don't usually get this many at once!--Kotniski (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I mention you...

here.radek (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

John Prescott

I'm not going to revert you again, but I do think it's disappointing that you find it necessary to put in your own wording, when the whole issue of how his nationality is described is under current active discussion, after a lengthy debate in which there is clearly, as yet, no consensus. You may think your wording is obviously better, but others won't. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not with you - the wording you reverted back to clearly doesn't have consensus. Only trying to make things better...--Kotniski (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to read through the pages of discussion on this. The wording may not "have consensus", but it was the wording which the current discussion was considering how best to change. That discussion was ongoing - unilaterally moving the goalposts in the middle of a discussion doesn't help the process. I'm making no comment on which version I personally prefer - that's not relevant here, I'm discussing the process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Iron Duke

Duke of Wellington ... not only is the moderately eminent general ... (LoL you must have written that to tease). He may have been a moderately talented general -- some (particular those with French accents) think that is so -- but he was defiantly one of the most eminent in history. Can you name anyone who had more than 12 Field Marshals batons stuffed into their desk draws? -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I was trying to be ironic - for the peerage brigade (unlike the rest of the world), "Duke of Wellington" has as its primary topic not the man, but the title that he received and passed on.--Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
We have an article on this man Henry Percy, 11th Duke of Northumberland "After succeeding to the Dukedom, he was noted for planting many trees at Syon House, the Ducal residence at Brentford ..." -- PBS (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral notification

As somebody who took part in the previous move discussion, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain

Hello. Haven't seen the Kotbot in action in months, in fact I've passed it in number of articles now!! Any chance you could help run the bot and copy the infoboxes from spanish wiki? Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, yes, I suppose it could do that. Can you give me some more detailed info, and I'll start working on it? (Though with holidays and so on, it probably won't actually produce anything until late August.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well see Category:Municipalities of Spain. Ideally we need to copy the infoboxes directly from Spanish wikipedia with cordinates/pin map and municipal locator if possible. As I said before you'd need to ask Plastikspork to see what he has done already. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I had started reformatting and adding infoboxes back in early January while closing some TFD's for region municipality infoboxes. I wrote a very hacked up perlwikipedia script which would copy information from the infoboxes on the corresponding Spanish page and merge it with the information in regional box on the English page. There were quite a few hacks in there to translate free form Spanish text to English where possible, and I had to visually inspect most of the edits and tweak the script as it went along. The result is that some now have infoboxes, e.g., Category:Municipalities in Asturias. I would say that the infoboxes you find there could serve as a framework for which information should be transfered. The other thing to watch out for is copying the coordinates, and merging any existing coordinates into the infobox. I had some stuff programmed up to make sure the coordinates were in agreement (or close enough) between the two pages, or it would prompt me to check the coordinates. One of the bigger issues will be detecting and dealing with hard-coded tables that are serving as infoboxes. I can see if I can find an example (Blofeld provided a link to one awhile back). It's probably best to go through the subcategories one at a time, since each subcategory is usually fairly consistent in format. For example, Catalonia municipalities are mostly using a Catalonia pushpin map (Àger), which seems better than the more general Spanish one since it has more detail. I had been delaying starting on the wider Spanish project mostly due to other commitments and the complexity of detecting and merging the information, since it can't be done in a completely automated manner. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware Kot, I think you could copy the infoboxes using full automation. Once that is done then somebody would need to go through them and fix the coordinates/maps I think. Is this correct Plastik? I would say that whatever Kot can do using full automation would be better than nothing. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So, duplicate coordinates in the title bar, multiple infoboxes, spanish text, broken images, are all okay? I would think some level of checking would be useful, especially considering there are at least a hundred which are already done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it isn't perfect. But if stage one Kot does the raw straight automation work in copying the infoboxes to display the data (which is missing from a high percentage of articles) with a source with no manual editing required this would be extremely beneficial even if the maps/broken images will need fixing at a later date. Once Kot has copied all of the infoboxes then perhaps you Plastik or Farmborough can code something to at least display the maps or clean them. If the infoboxes are there I can try to do some provinces manually cleaning up if the task isn't too tremendoud per article. Perhaps Kot you could do a trial run of a couple of articles and we can review what would need to be done at a later date to complete the task. The ideal will be eventually for every article on a Spanish ,municipality to have an infobox like Almansa with consistent and informative data. A lot of the current infobox in the municipal articles is severla years out if date and may need updating too. But first would be to add infoboxes to all articles without one. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

DNB

Just out of curiosity would it be possible to code a bot to create these articles? They are missing articles from the Dictionary of National Biography. All you'd need to do it copy and paste the text and programme the bot to wikify certain words and change ' ' to italics. Otherwise the task is going to take years manually and waste a lot of unnecessray time when the text exists on wiki source. Any thoughts? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For instance compare this to Joseph Brandreth. Could a bot be coded for this purpose? So far we have around 7000 articles out of 27000. They are working hard in wiki source to process the texts into storage. There are about 3600 currently waiting to be transferred. Can you help? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I suppose it would be possible, if the community was happy about it (I don't know what their policy is on biographies these days). Anyway, sorry, I probably won't have any time to look at either this or the Spanish thing in detail before my forthcoming wikibreak, so I'll come back to them in mid-August.--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, a lot of people are off for the summer anyway! Charles Matthews has spoken about a wikiproject for DNB (which would be a good idea, especially for adding DNB material which would need to be done manually to existing articles) but I actually think the missing articletask could be done quicker than anticipated through automated creation and would save me many hours of repetitive transfer work. It shouldn't be a concern from a biographical viewpoint, its the "BLPs" the community raves about not people who died over a hundred years ago!! I believe the bot would need to be coded for simple wikification work on them as I have shown in the Joseph Brandreth comparison. Minimal editing. It stands a good chance of being authorised as its public domain already written material which is considered traditionally encyclopedic and very beneficial in terms of knowledge. There are about 20,000 articles remaining to be created from this 27 volume book but only about 3600 at the moment are ready for transferring. It would likely take 10 years manually to fully complete!! WIth a bot i think 3600 articles could be transferring within days. As far as I can see it is the same format every time and a high number of articles which is ideal for a bot. The difficult part would probably be dabbing before a bot is run. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Poznań Fortress

Witam. Nie wiem czy działasz na simple wiki, ale jakbyś miał chwilkę to mógłbyś rozbudować ten artykuł tak jak na en. Nie chodzi mi o kopiowanie całej treści, ale umieszczenie kilku niezbędnych informacji zgodnie z obowiązującymi na simple zasadami. Byłbym bardzo wdzięczny za pomoc :-) Pozdrawiam Rzuwig► 07:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 27#Thoughts?

Were you observing this? Looks like there may be something to all that psychobabble about people being "in denial". I'd say it doesn't matter much whether you're right about WP deliberately having a system that doesn't work. The practical effect's the same: nothing will be done for the foreseeable future. Peter jackson (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kotniski/Archive_5&oldid=1142534715"