Jump to content

User talk:Lembit Staan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9


Dispute resolution noticeboard request re Peter Swirski claim to UMSL faculty status

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Peter_Swirski.23Inflated_claims_of_UMSL_connections_and_possible_COI

I have requested that a disinterested third party weigh in on the editorial contention that the claim on the Peter Swirski page regarding faculty status at UMSL is erroneous. My pardon for using the Wikipedia terms "arbitration" and "mediation" incorrectly. My intention was to initially discuss this issue on the subject's wikipedia page. Failing that, I feel this is the next appropriate step for attempting to resolve the issue. In over 9 years of editing and through 5,000+ edits I have never had the need for formal dispute resolution, mediation, or arbitration. I request your forbearance in my inadvertent misuse of wikipedia terminology in this case. Quartermaster (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

:Core_content_policies

Question about the revert here ..I am puzzled at why you believe more information about the topic at hand on this essay page is not valuable to our readers. You mentioned in your edit summary that it s an "internal page" ...as someone who edits theses types of pages I can assure you list of books about the topic at hand is the norm on many. What are the problems with the books listed?? Are you suggesting MIT or Stanford University are not reliable sources?-- Moxy (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy: Please notice in my edit summary: "... it may (and will) change." Consequently, MIT is not reliable source about our current policies. This is our internal affair, and only our community is the sole reliable source about policies of our community. No need to increase readers' confusion. If our policies are poorly written, then we have to edit them, and absolutely not refer: "OK, if you failed to grasp it, see what a Stanford professor says". I am sure buddies of Andrew Lih or Charles Matthews would love to list their books wherever possible. So hereby I invoke WP:UNDUE: their insights may be valuable, but irrelevant for the purposes of our guidelines. On the other hand, you are more than welcome to add these books to essays: places where personal opinions are vented (some of them are widely cited, but nevertheless they are not not guidelines). Staszek Lem (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think there is some sort of confusion here ..as the page in question is an essay...not a guideline or policy. Are you sure you are aware of the page we are talking about? As someone who edits polices, guidelines and info pages I can assure that having more info for our readers is helpful. Still not sure why more info is not valuable in thus case at all -- Moxy (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Moxy: Nope. Not an essay. I checked before I wrote, because, as I said, in essays it would be OK. This page is a first-stop one. From it, people must be directed to our rules, not to opinions about them. Dissipates attention. re: "More info is helpful": the whole idea behind this page is to be a minimal hub to start from. Anyway, I reverted myself after figured out how to keep your list: It must be phrased not as "further reading", i.e., as an endorsement, but as a regular section saying something like, "with wikipedia coming to age it became subject of scholarly research and monographs blablabla...:" I believe you can do this better than me. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Your not new so I am assuming you have seen our other main "info pages" (that are classified as essays here on Wikipedia) like WP:About or WP:HOW that have these sections. I will try and thin of better wording for the section...but its best to lead our readers to as much info as possible on all topics...as internal information may not be presented in the best manner or complete. As for it being minimal start page..we have many other pages for that that have much less info on them....this page is for the history on the topic. I will chalk this up to a simple oversight on what we are here to do..that is to inform readers as much as possible ...inducing reading material from outside researchers and opinions on internal matters. Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia. -- Moxy (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly my last point: it is OK to have info about books on wikipedia, but they should not be endorsed as an authoritative source about our WP:CCPOL. Also, I can say the same to you: "Your not new", so I assume you know the difference between essay and guideline. Therefore I attribute your stance only to the fact that you somehow formed yourself an opinion that it is an essay and didn't double-check when questioned. In fact, neither WP:About, nor WP:HOW and nor WP:CCPOL are essays. They are in categories Wikipedia administration Wikipedia help Wikipedia policies and guidelines . Unlike essays, pages in these categories require a significant community consensus and changing of their content requires deep deliberation. See, e.g. the hatnote: "This is an information page that describes a communal consensus". Books are not community consensus, they are personal opinions and they cannot be suggested as "further reading" about actual community consensus. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
O well we will have to disagree about the classifications of the pages I write and how I structured them. In the future try to be more open to giving our readers more info from academic sources. I does no harm to info our readers with multiple POV;s. Having a further reading section does not mean we endorse anything ..its simply more info on the topic at hand and is the reason we are all here.These are not guidelines or policies they are INFORMATION pages about our policies and guidelines. -- Moxy (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Moxy: Yes they are information pages, but they are not categorized as essays, once again Category:Wikipedia_basic_information is in Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Therefore they must reflect community consensus. And I do not disagree that user may be informed about different opinions. However I disagree that a further reading section does not mean we endorse anything. The mere inclusion is an endorsement by itself: you list it because you think it is relevant for correct understanding our policies, right?. You don't list, say, an article "Wikipedia" from Encyclopedia Dramatica, right? Even in policy pages we have well-recognized essays in "see also" . But usually they are clearly marked as essays (at least that's what I and some other wikipedians to). The same here: there must be a clear indication that books are just opinions, not consensus. People tend to think that printed word is some kind of ultimate wisdom (after all, wikipedian's ultimate trump is a reference, right?) In the case of our policies it is an exception, and must be clearly marked a such. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No guess work pls . WP:PGLIFE - {{Information page}} - All is under Admin if it has Wiki in the title...anyway s this "essay/advice/info page".. I have added some info and changed the section title. See if this helps your opposition.-- Moxy (talk)
@Moxy:Yes, no guesswork, you are right, but WP:PGLIFE says "Essays and information pages", i.e., they are expressly distinguished. Anyway, you did what I had in mind, thanks, bye. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Query

Criticism of Wikipedia, whether on its content, its community, or its organization -> regarding the bolded, do you mean the Wikimedia organization? If so, it should be wiki-linked? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution on Psychometrics

Are you requesting to be added to the list of parties to the dispute resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: No. I am not a party I was offering a general-purpose opinion about lists of an uninvolved person. I have no opinion on the particular subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. The section name has been changed to reflect statements by other editors rather than by unregistered editors. (It was there because we originally had an unregistered editor, which you obviously are not.) You will not be added to the list of parties, but are welcome to comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


Polish-Americans and Jews

Given that A) Jack Warner was born in Ontario, Canada B) His parents were Yiddish-speaking (per the Wikipedia article on him)

in order to call him or Helea "Polish-American" you'll need to provide a reliable source saying that he self-identified as such. I don't need to provide a source, since the Polish American article already makes it clear that Jews living in Poland at the time as a rule, did not consider themselves to be Polish Americans. "Jewish immigrants from Poland, largely without exception, identified as "Jewish" or "Russian Jewish" when inside the United States, and faced a historical trajectory far different from that of the ethnic Poles." (which has a citation from a reliable source). I'm going to re-revert your change, and feel free to re-add them only if you can find a reliable source. Thanks.

DemocraticLuntz (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues

Hi Staszek Lem. The reason for this edit is because the Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues should only contain actively editing people. Please see the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues, which is what promted my to attempt to clean out the inactive editors from the category. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thx for expl. YOu could have written edit summary like: "rm category per Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues statute" . Surely, not many people remember all minute detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Staszek Lem, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal talk 00:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence in fiction

In order for an example to be listed in an "in popular culture" article, it still needs a source that verifies that it is a notable example of such a topic. Per WP:BURDEN, you should not restore unsourced additions; if you think it's verifiable, then locate a source that verifies it. For example, see list of fictional child prodigies. Note how each entry has a citation to a independent reliable source that verifies that the entry is due. It took forever, but almost all of those citations were added by me. I will eventually get around to doing the same for this article. Right now, it needs more citations, not more unsourced additions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I understand and share you concern with "popculture" lists. I am doing such cleanup myself whenever I run into an example farm. However it seems that we slightly differ about the criteria of inclusion. I take it is the subject constitutes a significant part of the plot, then it is reasonable to assume it is a notable example. I've seen many disputes where it is argued that self-evident examples do not necessarily need references for being examples of some phenomenon, per WP:V, if they are not disputed. In our case:
  • is "evil AI" is present Code Lyoko? - yes and this is verifiable
  • is "evil AI" a notable part of the plot of Code Lyoko - yes and it is verifiable
  • is "evil AI" from Code Lyoko can be an example for the discussed article - yes, per common sense, because you can easily find sources which say that X.A.N.A. is an evil AI.
  • Is X.A.N.A. is a notable example in the sense that there is an article about "evil AI" which lists it as an example? - I don't know and I don't think we have a guideline to demand this. So if you was to make such a guideline, please start a central discussion somewhere, otherwise you can start hundreds of edit wars in numerous pop-lists (and I will join you, because I'd really like to cut them all as well, especially the AI :-) But I doubt you will find much support. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If you think that this is a notable example of evil A.I., you should cite a source that verifies this. Otherwise, it's original research to assert that it's a notable example – or even an example at all. I could say that The Hobbit is an example of evil A.I. and truly believe it in all my heart, but without a citation to a reliable source to verify it, it's just original research on my part. I think you see the problem. Editors do not make the determination as to whether an individual work is an example of a plot element, and they don't decide whether it's notable. This is handled through citations to independent reliable sources. As WP:BURDEN says, you really should not be restoring unsourced content once it's been challenged. The proper action is to locate a source. The burden is on you to prove that this is a notable example. I will go through the article and add citations later, but it is not really high on my list currently. In the meantime, any unsourced examples can be deleted by any editor per WP:V. Your interpretation of the plot is probably correct, and I'm not challenging that; however, I am challenging your original research, or, more correctly, that of the original IP editor. If you really insist, we can go to RSN, where they will probably tell you what I just did. The last time I did this, people said I was wasting time by bringing such an obviously open-and-shut issue to the noticeboard, so I'd rather not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ehh, I found a more-or-less reliable source for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @NinjaRobotPirate: I am not against WP:BURDEN. HOwever its application requires common sense. To claim that Hobbit is AI is against common sense, so I can demand the ref. X.A.N.A is verififiably AI, and to challenge this fact is not common sense. However you do have right to demand references. But this is done with {{cn}} tag rather than outright revert. This will give time contributors to find a reference. This is the spirit of wikipedia cooperation. Outright deletion is for things which are reasonably expected to be wrong. If we go amok and start deleting unsourced text we will delete 37% of wikipedia. WP:V does not demand this. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Cieszyn Silesia

[1] -> the second uncited statement could be deduced from these two maps: File:Gminy zamieszkane przez Ślązaków.png, File:Wyniki RAŚ według gmin w wyborach do sejmiku województwa śląskiego (2010).png, but I guess it needs some more explicit citations? D_T_G (PL) 19:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class
For your continued edits on Poland-related topics, I am proud to award you The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

this WikiAward was given to Staszek Lem by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here on 02:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages

Thank you for your recent articles, including Zbrzyca River, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Krëbane

The article Krëbane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lithuania–Poland border

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting NACs

Per WP:NACD, please do not reopen non-admin closures of discussions you've participated in. Alakzi (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for defending me on my ANI reporting of a particular individual. At least I'm not the only one who thought it was not acceptable.  — Calvin999 19:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Aviation lists

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Aviation lists. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

How to do it.

Sorry for putting my remark on the AIV page instead of here. That was thoughtless of me. What you should do: It's the same old advice you've doubtless heard many times before: focus on the content rather than the contributor. Be polite to people even when they are behaving badly. Instead of saying, "Can't you read?" you could say "Please don't remove deletion discussion templates". Telling him to take a break was good advice, as he is obviously upset. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: While in general I would agree, but in this case the issue was behavior, not content. The edit history clearly shows that this person cannot or would not read other's comments, see eg. this one. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Logic would tell you that, but people don't behave logically when they are upset. Their emotions take over. So, in addition to your two possibilities ("he can't read"; "he's a vandal"), I offer a third possibility: people say and do things when they're upset that they otherwise would not say or do. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Once again, referring to this one, I can imagine that the person was upset that they were reverted, but I don't think we are in the business of brain-shrinkers here; we are writing wikipedia. If a person numerous times ignores clearly written comments, then regardless their fragile psyche, they are disrupting wikipedia. Since you appear to be willing to mentor this user, please tell him not to act while being upset, or else. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I already did that, at 19:40. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Yes, I've noticed that (that's why I wrote about your mentoring), but you did not advice them not to act while upset. And not to piss on the walls, and not to break toys, etc. And next time he deletes a referenced text you tell him not to delete referenced text. And when he replaces the text of article Poles with that of "Polack" you will tell them not to replace. Well, it's your personal time. I have a hobby of writing wikipedia in my free time. I may admit you have a hobby (or duty) of teaching people manners in your free time. We both have our own fun. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: @Diannaa: I did not vandalise that Wikipedia page. As you can see in this article of the 21st Academy Awards, the comment regarding Humphrey Bogart's performance in The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre being snubbed is extremely similar to what I wrote of Psycho, Vertigo and Anthony Perkins and James Stewart and Kim Novak and Alfred Hitchcock direction of Vertigo being snubbed and therefore I belive that this does not constitute as vandalism, but contributing to Wikipedia in a style that others have freely contributed. Furthermore, I understand that you have gone over my irrational thought, but I do not like this being expressed too vividly. I can't get everything in the world, but that is something I would like to happen. And :::@Staszek Lem: I am probably a different type of person to both of you, but you can't go around, criticizing an administrator when you have no seeable power yourself. 'Piss on the walls.' 'Break toys.' 'OR ELSE.' HAVE I BECOME A MERE OBJECT IN YOUR CONVERSATION? I am disgusted. It is clear that you have no consideration for others feelings whatsoever, even if as is the case with :::@Diannaa: they are trying to HELP YOU. I am glad you were kind enough to tell me to take a break, but in that manner, if I was anyone else, I would have carried on doing the same old thing because I was infuriated with your thoughtlessness. I'm under 15. You were probably just a naïve as me when you were that age. If you don't know me, don't persecute me. User: Samuel Williscroft (User talk: Samuel Williscroft) 08:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC).
@Staszek Lem: @Diannaa: Yeah, I have no idea why I wrote that, apologies. Samuel Williscroft (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Identity theft in the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Identity theft in the United States. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Typically the lead is 4 paragraphs. Not sure why the heading "abdominal gerniation"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A brain herniation is not called a hernia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI Thread

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Staszek_Lem reported by User:Samuel Williscroft. Thank you. DES (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Add consulting firm to

I would appreciate if you could kindly add Arcus Consulting Group (www.arcusgroup.ca) to the list of consulting firms on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_management_consulting_firms#/ Arcus Consulting Group Toronto (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Supercarrier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Supercarrier. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Year 2000 problem

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Year 2000 problem. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Polish League Against Defamation

Czołem! Usiłuję wprowadzić porządek w nazwach. Należy tez szybko zmienić tytuł a z tym mam na razie problem. Anti-Defamation jest nazwą zastrzeżoną i niewłaściwą dla Reduty Dobrego Imienia. Powinno być Polish League Against Defamation. W Wikipedii angielskiej wprowadzam zmianę pierwszy raz i wygląda to trochę inaczej niż w polskiej. Dodałem źródło zewnętrzne - angielskojęzyczną stronę RDI. Pomóż proszę jeśli coś zrobiłem nie tak formalnie. Pozdrawiam Micha.kkvs2k (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Micha.kkvs2k: oki niema sprawy Staszek Lem (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Global agenda

The proposal has been userfied. I don't think there's any need for Wavelength to seek consensus on the draft at the moment and as such I reverted your removals. To me, if someone were to propose that we eliminate WP:NPOV (or something more realistic like removing anonymous IP editing), while I'd consider that absurd and not likely to succeed, it seems like there's consensus to allow the person to still argue their viewpoint and then have it rejected if need be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC) @Ricky81682: yep. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Simulation hypothesis

Dear "Stanisław", I have already provided several sources about simulations, haven't you noticed there? But what points do you want me to source more, please enumerate shortly, believe me all things I pointed out are very very easily sourceable/calculable even for high-school pupil interested (not only movie "Matrix" basing) in computer simulations and philosophy--Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Also You should already know that: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." --Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You have removed even in-line quotation, this is not original research, what are you doing my dear Stasia?;). (Może pogadamy po polsku bo jakbyś był po naszemu "wczorajszy" ;), a nie chciałbym swojemu robić więcej przykrości ;).--213.158.218.48 (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are questioning OR, you should put Template:Original_research at first, not try to decide yourself without any discussion (as one-person-king-of-en-wikipedia) about this, that is GOOD practice here on English Wikipedia (i'm here since 12-2003 you shall not be newbie any more).--Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And last thing how can you promote hypothesis that is widely considered fantastic (Matrix movie) and ask for source for the opposite obvious judgement, it's an absurd, So maybe you want Wikipedia also to provide you with the source that Dragons don't exist? It's your role to provide Wikipedia with sources for this Bstrom's Fringe theory--Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. I will look into it later. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Take a look for instance at publications of following Polish professor and ministry of education undersecretary of state Włodzisław Duch home page(in Polish), pl:Włodzisław Duch. Cheers :) --Paweł Ł Zawada (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Cladida

Thank you for your edit, but I do still see a problem. That problem is that that was good information. If that could be placed in the article itself that would be nice, but if you don't want to do this, then tell me and I will state that Cladida is an extinct order of Crinoidea. I thought you might like to know. NewbTopolis Rex (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Historic map

Dzień dobry. About the map, it's done since August 2013 (see the discussion page of this map). About a discussion with Poznaniak, I tried. He stay on his source and position. Volunteer Marek have also this position. May be, it's the official position in Poland about the Polish-Moldavian relation in the middle-ages ? Too bad... It's not very important. Thanks for your good will. Wishes, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification system

Hi -- About the article Notification system, which you have redirected to a disambiguation page twice, would you please open a wp:AFD discussion, to get views of more people and a decision by consensus? That would be normal process in wikipedia for deletion of articles (including redirects like this which is effectively a deletion) where there is any disagreement.

I appreciate that you're trying to improve Wikipedia and you have a good point to make (that you suggested in an edit summary, i.e. that the article is unsourced and/or original research). If the article stays as it is then the AFD would probably conclude "Delete" or "Redirect". But I prefer for the AFD to go on as I expect the article can be improved during the AFD. Also I don't want to improve it solely by myself in a sandbox; i want others to see it and make improvements to it.

Note a further reason for restoration at least temporarily is that the article has good inbound links from other articles which become "dablinks" if the redirect is in place. Those dablinks then show up on the worklists of disambiguators at wp:DPL (including me, that's why I noticed it in the first place) and would likely get changed and be lost, which would be unfortunate if the "notification system" article gets improved during AFD and kept, which I think it will.]

BTW, I think it is fine that you made a "bold" change like your first redirect, but my revert/restoration indicates at least some disagreement, and then by wp:BRD the next step would be for the bold actor to seek discussion, which in this case is properly at AFD.

So I hope you don't mind but I will restore the article again now. Please do ping me or invite me at my Talk page, if you do open an AFD and it seems like I have not noticed it. But I probably will notice it and respond promptly.

respectfully, --doncram 18:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: oh, i see that you on your own have restored it already. Thanks that is best I think. I will try to improve it with some references within a day or two. You can of course still open an AFD later. --doncram 18:50, 10 September 2015

All horses are the same color

I am wondering for the reasons that lead you to correct the page in All horses are the same color and remove my contribution. Clearly the explanation given is wake and limited to a case where N=2, while the induction method requires from us to assume that this N can be any natural number, so I had added explanation that is addressing any N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Vrtanoski (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Roland Berger Strategy Consultants

Hello Staszek Lem, thank you for your edits at the RBSC article. I wasn't aware of that problem, but your edits made me look into it more closely: it seems like vault.com is used c. 200 times on en-Wikipedia - most often as vanity "award" for the "best place to work in" in older references or, more recently, for relatively trivial branche-internal opinion polls. Especially articles about consultant companies with significant SPA edits seem to include that kind of reference to boost their reputation. Do you think, a discussion at WP:RSN could help to address this issue (or at least raise some awareness about it)? GermanJoe (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Day of the Six Billion

Please be advised that categories are generally not supposed to go on redirects. Please stop adding them in. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Asarelah:. Please be advised that the tone of your notice is impolite regardless your "thank you". Please see the answer in Talk:The Day of Six Billion, where the discussion belongs. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

David L. Jones

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: While I agree with your overall statement, wikipedia disagrees with your interpretation of of the type of the links you contest. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
That would be incorrect. I don't expect you will make any attempt to back your assertion at this point. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ronz: My answer was just as meaningless an your initial post. You are right guessing that the issue is now moot for me, but in the future rather than slapping and orange icon onto a long-time wikipedian, please be specific with your concerns. We are on the same page here, I believe; it remained only to nail down differences in the interpretation, which is impossible without talking specifics. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
So it's about your not liking to be left a pre-written notice.
I don't know if you're unaware of what you did, unaware of why it was inappropriate, or perhaps (given this discussion) you were just acting out. I chose to focus on policy. You appear to want to focus elsewhere. Sorry. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ronz: It is about me not liking fingerwaving without explanations. And my focus of the specific application of the policy, which you failed to provide. I was not even speaking of the generous ridiculosity of your accusationalism about me allegationally trying to promotionalize something which I have no slightest idea about (since the latter is impossible to prove on the internets). Staszek Lem (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
[2] So you don't know what you did. Fair enough: You edit-warred to restore a link that was not a reference, REFSPAM. Be more careful next time. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ronz: OK, thank you. If you are talking about link to eevblog.com, it is the website of the person who is the subject of the bio and which is itself is discussed the article. It is customary to include such information into bios. You can find links to twitter, facebook, and whats not. If you are talking about the duck, it is OK no include the image of the duck. I am afraid we are in a severe disagreement here. Which discussion board do you prefer to resolve the disagreement? (I hope you understand that the Jones has nothing to do with the issue.) By the way I did know what I did; I am not that imbecile. I did not know what you dislike, once again, for God's sake. Please stop with this condescending tone. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"Please stop with this condescending tone." Sorry that you feel that way. How about making some suggestions rather than assuming it is intentional?
If you look closely at the diff, you'll see you edit-warred over three links. The eevblog and theamphour links are both REFSPAM. I think it safe to assume your edit summary was referring to the hackaday primary source.
What are your referring to, "the duck"? --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ronz: eevblog and theamphour links are both websites operated by the article subject and in fact they are the base of his alleged notability, therefore IMO they are not REFSPAM. (Forget duck; my bad analogy.) Even when we are writing an article about a kook, we include his website and we don't call it REFSPAM of his kookery. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
re: "condescending tone." I am referring to your advice "please be careful next time" We are amid a dispute and you already firmly assuming that you are right and I am dead wrong. Of course it is commendable to hold your ground, and I have nothing against it. But as of this moment I am holding my ground as well, because you did not prove I am wrong; so far you are only declaring I am wrong. I am perfectly willing to accept your position in this detail as soon as you provide any argument: similarly you, I am strongly against commercial spamming of wikipedia and combatting it every time I see it. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have a unique interpretation of what is and is not refspam. It is inappropriate to add external links as if they are references when they are not. WP:REFSPAM says, "Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references." WP:EL begins, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article."--Ronz (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, everybody is unique. After your recent clarification I understand what you have in mind. Judging by the beginning of this talk I assumed you were against adding links to these websites as such. I agree that they are not citations to confirm some article statements and therefore should not be used as footnotes. Sorry for wasting your time. In the future I will follow this your clarification. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience with me. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Done with Ronz

Sorry but I can't help further with Ronz's assault on David L. Jones. The thread is disturbing my equanimity. Good luck in the fight against his guerilla BLP ! SageGreenRider (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Why did you break the link to Polish Wikipedia? I ask the question because I don't understand the markup/format you used. Cheers--Woogie10w (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Woogie10w: As a computer programmer, I am tempted to write RTFM; unfortunately most people do not understand the joke and get offended. So, for the best explanation, please read the doc for {{ill}}. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
ok thanks for the info, I should take the next step and create the English article, regards--Woogie10w (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: Actually it's all my fault; I should created the article myself, the moment I saw it missing, but I am lazy and don't care about edit count :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Staszek, you were right, the routine worked. Eberhardt popped up after I created the article. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maciejowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maciejów. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenIndiana

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:OpenIndiana. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Polish student ID

Hi, I noticed that you created Polish school student ID and Polish student ID. Considering the length of the articles, they should probably be merged into one article, but even then, they may not be notable enough to have their own article. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Groszek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franchise. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion report

If you feel you have been misrepresented, please explain how Esquivalience has misrepresented you and we will both examine the issue and act accordingly. We wish to insure that you are represented accurately, but it is not appropriate for a party involved in a story to rewrite the story the way they want it, as the story is supposed to be a neutral view of the story from a third party. The discussion section of any Signpost story is open for anyone to respond, so you can have your say in full there. Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:<shrug>It is really is not that important for me so as to bother the author. If you don't want a correct presentation of my position, I am not going to go all wikilawyerwise. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)}}

Thanks

Was wondering who was editing my user page, but that was helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello thank you for concern about article i made about Djibril Gibson Kagni but here is prove that he is real person and real artist and great music producer. please read this link https://www.steinberg.net/en/artists/stories/2014/gibson_kagni.html

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamirAmis (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "David L. Jones". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 December 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wikipediocracy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wikipediocracy. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning David L. Jones, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Florida State Road 997

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Florida State Road 997. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pâté de Foie Gras (short story), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy-metal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Dag

Hi, I noticed this edit. Do not forget that red links are not forbidden. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Red links -- Basilicofresco (msg) 10:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Basilicofresco: Yes, I know that. The real issue is whether there ever be an any meaningful discussion of the subject under this title. This is what disambig pages are for: navigation among Wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Eliticide

Sources precisely describe the tagged articles as eliticide. What are you talking about? Read the article. --Potočnik (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems ok

Re: Pirx. But for DYK you'll need to reference each para (and if possible, sentence). I'd add Stiller's quote from [3]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ayurveda

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ashen Lights

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nikolai_Aleksandrovich_Kozyrev

???? verify by yourself

Vespro Latuna (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to verify anything. Did you see my edit summary? - [Reverted 1 edit by Vespro Latuna (talk): Not in sources cited. (TW)) (undo)] Staszek Lem (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Extropianism

If you want we can cancel the term Sintropy, but i will add again the contribution about negentropy. Did you read the book, at least? Or are you just speaking from the top of your throne?

Vespro Latuna (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Vespro Latuna

This user also complains[4] about pseudoscientific stuff I removed[5] from the Aether theories article. Since the incompetence of the admins on this site is nearly infinite I won't bother pursuing it any further personally, but if his vandalism continues, feel free to leave me a talk message if you require any assistance.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lembit_Staan/Archive_3&oldid=1144285932"