User talk:Kotniski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk page policy: I dislike seeing only one side of a discussion on a page. If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Zgorzelec

Hi, Should we put "formally Gorlitz"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrofe (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good we will leave it as is. By the way, Gorlitz and Zgozelec are certinly translations as Polish Zgozelec is certainly formerly Gorlitz whether you want them to be or not. --Agrofe (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Zgorzelec is part of former Gorlitz (or rather formerly part of Gorlitz). Gorlitz still exists.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Autodense

A tag has been placed on Template:Autodense requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gora

Yes, exactly. The word actually means "golden" but is used for people of yellow or light-brownish skins. Some have however applied it to people of lighter skins as well (but then it is not properly used.) Mostly its used for yellowish-skinned people. - IndoHistorian —Preceding comment was added at 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really widely used in that sense. It is misused sometimes, but not widely. A yellow-skinned (or golden-brown) person qualifies as a "gora". - IndoHistorian

[edit] Barn Star

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your tireless work splitting Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia into many smaller pages - it was needed Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

test 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.118 (talk)

[edit] Audio-IPA-pl

I noticed in {{Audio-IPA-pl}} that one must put pipes between each sound so as to link between different sections of IPA chart for Polish. I've changed IPA chart for Polish to not have these sections (and I don't think it should, since other IPA chart for X articles don't do so). It's a neat feature, but perhaps we should make Audio-IPA-pl and {{IPA-pl}} similar to {{Audio-IPA}} and {{IPARus}} in allowing one to not put the pipes since removing them currently makes no link. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made a change to {{Plph}} which ensures that there is a link even when the pipes are not used. Maybe we should actually create a further page in Help: space, similar in purpose to Help:IPA and Help:Pronunciation, taking more or less the form IPA chart for Polish had before you standardized it, and link to there instead. If it's a help page I don't think there should be any objection to keeping it un-technical and having separate sections.--Kotniski (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Did I make it too technical? I'd like to see IPA chart for X pages be of the same usefulness as Help:Pronunciation so perhaps we should convert the IPA charts for Hebrew, Italian, Polish, Russian, and Spanish to help pages. There's not much use for IPA chart for X pages except as a quick reference guide to the sounds; this is especially useful when transcribing words or phrases from these languages. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
All right, maybe it's not too technical as it stands. I'll just modify the IPA-pl templates to link directly to that page without sections (I suppose now the tables fit pretty much on one screen, the section links aren't so necessary). I don't know whether these pages should be Help: pages or mainspace pages - we do have Help:IPA and Help:Pronunciation, but on the other hand most Help: pages seem to be about technical help for using/editing Wikipedia rather than this kind of content-related help. --Kotniski (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the idea I have is that these pages would guide editors into understanding how phonetic transcriptions in each of these languages ought to be made on Wikipedia. The lead sections would emulate that of Help:Pronunciation. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No objection from me then if you want to make the charts into Help: pages.--Kotniski (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hiddenstub magic word

I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Stub category policy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: PipepBot

Hi Kotniski, my bot just solved interwiki links conflicts. Deleted links in Gmina Brzeg Dolny are wrong links. They are already present in Brzeg Dolny. --Pipep (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the italian link it:Brzeg Dolny would make more sense in Brzeg Dolny than in Gmina Brzeg Dolny, because the italian page talks about "Gmina Brzeg Dolny". Anyway, for the moment with my bot I will only remove interwiki links that are obviously wrong. --Pipep (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The japanese link in en:Malbork was removed because it was wrong. en:Malbork is about the town of Malbork. ja:マルボルク城 is about the Castle of Malbork. It is linked in en:Malbork Castle. I remeber you, that interwiki links are only to be put between articles covering the same subject, see Help:Interlanguage links. --Pipep (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that the japanese article is about the castle, because in the first sentence it says "...german language: Ordensburg Marienburg, polish language: Zamek w Malborku ..." and in the box in the right it says "english name: Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork, french name: Château de l’ordre Teutonique de Malbork". Thus the English link in the Japanese article is right, and my edit in Malbork is correct. Of course, my bot don't understand any language, but every time it sees a problem it asks me, and I decide what to do. For more informations about how interwiki bots are working, please read m:Interwiki.py. If you still think, my edit was wrong, please tell me why. --Pipep (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Górki

You may be interested in it; how is the bot-aided transfer of entities going? I haven't seen any recently.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CFD closure

Hi Kotniski, I just want to let you know that I've removed the closing template that you posted for the Francophonie CFD. I'm sure that you did the closing entirely in good faith, but under the rules for CFD's, participants are not allowed to close CFDs. I'm sure you can understand why that rule exists. So just hang tight, it'll be closed soon enough even without your help! :) Cgingold (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. I knew non-admins could close debates but I didn't know/remember that excluded participants.--Kotniski (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Bot transfer of entities

Ciekawy pomysl, proponowalbym zapytac sie o to gdzies na WP:VP.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Settlement / UN/LOCODE

Hi Kotniski, if your bot gets a list of articles and related UN/LOCODE could it add the code to the article? I think the quality of Wikipedia and of the UN/LOCODEs can be made bigger, if these two databases are tight closer together. WP would have an official reference for existence of a settlement and the UN would have nice articles related to their codes :-). A lot of articles have already a UN/LOCODE redirect, which allows all websites running with UN/LOCODE to link to WP, see Category:Redirects_from_UN/LOCODE. Adding the codes to all settlement articles would help the process of creating redirects. I will post this also to the Infobox talk. Thanks for your feedback. UnLoCode (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi (and thanks for unvandalizing the page!) Theoretically my bot could do this, but it isn't the best choice for this kind of task, simply because of its slowness (I have to run it over a fairly slow link, at restricted times, and it would take months to make tens of thousands of edits). MJC's bot (for example) could probably do the job much quicker.--Kotniski (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my bot is not approval for uploading dasebases. And I wouldn't know how to program it either. User:CapitalR's bot has done massive database work in the past in relation to Infobox Settlement. He'd be the best person to ask. —MJCdetroit (yak) 12:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi both, thanks for your feedback. Nice to hear of CapitalR's bot. UnLoCode (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Słupsk

Mógłbyś poprawić ewentualne błędy gramatyczne i semantyczne w tym artykule?
Could you correct the eventual grammatical and semantic mistakes in this article? Jubilee line (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will. But maybe I'll wait till after you finish working on it.--Kotniski (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Categories

Might I interest you in revising the heading/purpose of Category:Hidden categories to reflect the fact that WP:CAT now includes guidelines on thier use. The current heading/purpose was written before WP:CAT included its discussion of Hidden Categories. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, done.--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Augustow

Hi Kotniski, you added Lithuanian name to Augustow and seriously, this is OK. But look at double standards of Lokyz. He removed Polish names for Varena and Lentvaris, but insists on keeping a Lithuanian name for Sejny. What do you think? All I want is a fair game. Let them keep Lithuanian names, but let us keep Polish names. Tymek (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to engage in nationalistic warring, but I agree that this kind of information should appear in articles on places. Let me know about any more incidents where people are removing Polish names, if you need any help ensuring that they are restored.--Kotniski (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Company Types

Hi fella,

please see here:

Talk:Types_of_business_entity#Please Separate Articles Again !

answer me on that talk page if you want...or here, up to you

Cheers!

Nic

62.176.111.68 (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


excellent suggestion about the "list of business abbreviations", i'm all for that, thanks. that would be cool - simply have one link to that page from this one and nothing else, and keep THIS page as the main page everything else links to (and obviously, have a note on the other one saying main article: types of business entity).
could you please send me - or post here - a more precise link to the ORIGINAL history page that you mention, however, since the "history" of it seems to automatically go to the history of the CURRENT page (kinda like in Back to the Future II ! :-) ). I just can't seem to find it...
Thanks, Nic
ps. or at least somehow send me the entire wiki code for it (ie. the original text, written up as you would when editing) eg on this talk page so as i can pick it up to use later...???
However, i would prefer it if You resurrect it, or ask someone who is interested in doing so, since, as i said, i can't register on Wiki and do it myself...
ta! 62.176.111.68 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've put it on that talk page (well, actually a subpage which is linked to from that talk page, since people might want to leave messages on the talk page). You can use it from there. If it was put back into the main encyclopedia it would probably just get deleted, since it adds little to Types of business entity and contains much less information. --Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Thank you very much for doing that - much appreciated.
and you're right, it is better if all info stay on one page - and it is pretty clear as it is, so i wont insist on the other page to be added anywhere to not clutter up anything, but just use it myself for the minute.
by the way - how did you get that old page's history - do you have to be a registered user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.68 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. No, you don't have to be a registered user to get the page history, but since it's now a redirect you have to do this: type "Types of companies" in the search box and click "Go"; at the top where it says "Redirected from Types of Companies" in small type click "Types of companies"; on the "Types of companies" page click the "history" tab; click the date+timestamp of the version you want to look at; click "edit" to see the source. Cheers, Kotniski (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphens and dashes

On the MoS talk page, you refer to the Chicago Manual endorsing the use of hyphens where en dashes would otherwise be used. You also mention a London-Sydney usage in Chicago. I assume you are referring in both instances to the Chicago Manual of Style. Which edition are you using and where is that London-Sydney bit? -Rrius (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was actually from their Q&A website. London-Sydney wasn't an example from there, it was just an ad hoc example of mine to show the difference with New York–Sydney. In fact it probably wasn't the best example to choose, since in this case the hyphen/dash does actually represent "to" so the dash might be preferred anyway.
Damn, I can't find the exact page on their website I was reading about this on, which contained some good example. But this one: [1] seems at least to summarize the issue.--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hi. I just saw your reply at the end of the thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 43#Question about 3RR policy, which I don't think I'd seen previously. You have some very good points. Definitely there are downsides to blocking. I still think my point about self-discipline etc. is also a good one. I don't know what the best overall solution is. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel B

Heres what you missed (since you cannot view deleted pages/histories): the article, the user, the MfD, the open letter, the afds, and the drvs. Anything else I believe is deleted (false positive?). For the DRV's: just click history and view it befoore the courtesy blanking. Cheers! Hope this clears a little up. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you probably don't want to touch this issue with a 10 foot pole. Emailuser me if you need more information. MBisanz talk 10:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hold off for a few days?

I'm in the middle of some major work on style guidelines, could we hold off for a few days, maybe a week, on the 1700s matter? I don't know how hairy it will get. (Feel free to respond here.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Kotniski (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bili Sarny detention centre

Can you take a look at that article? It should be renamed, at the very least (per my comment on talk).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about a prod first, but AfD may generate more exposure. I think it is a real entity, doesn't look like a hoax. Please do a prod or an AfD, whichever one you feel is better. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Settlement rank fields for pop & area

Hi Kotniski,
Hope all is well.
Can you do me a favor and add two optional population total and area total "rank" fields to {{Infobox Settlement}}? I can see a need for them. I'd do it myself but lately I'm not on wiki very much or for very long. I'm asking you because it should be quick and easy for you and I know you'll double check to make sure there aren't any bugs. Thanks in advance. —MJCdetroit (yak) 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S., any admin can turn off the protection when ready. User:52 Pickup is a good template admin and is on the same timezone as you (CET?), if that helps. —MJCdetroit (yak) 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all's well thanks, except that I've ben getting drawn into too many pointless arguments lately. Anyway, I'm happy to put in the rank fields, but tell me exactly what it is you have in mind. You mean something like in {{Infobox Country}}, with just a rank in parentheses after the total figure, linked to a relevant list? Or something on a separate line, with more information visible? The situation with settlements is a bit different from that with countries, since with countries it's pretty obvious what the ranking refers to, but for settlements it might need to be stated explicitly (i.e. is it the nth largest in the world, in the country, in the state...?)--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was just thinking of something like infobox country's setup—rank in parentheses after the total and linked to a relevant list. As you point out, due to the nature of Infobox Settlement, we'd have to instruct editors that they can't just put down ranked nth without any kind of a link to a list showing the context of the ranking. For example, in Burma, Rangoon (Yangoon) could have "(ranked 1st) after the population figure and have it linked to List_of_cities_in_Burma#Largest Cities, so that it is clear that it is the most populous city in Burma and not of a smaller division of that country.
I think that explicit instructions need to state that unless a link to a relevant list is given the rank fields should not be filled in. No link, no need to fill in the field. I don't think that we should have it say "(ranked 1st in Burma)" because that may clutter the box too much, at least for some infoboxes. —MJCdetroit (yak) 12:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is such a great idea. Like you say, putting "(ranked 1st in Burma)" would clutter the box too much; however just putting "(1st)" would be potentially misleading to readers who aren't insipred to click the link. If someone gets used to seeing ranks per country, and then comes across an article which happens to give rank by region or state, they're probably just going to make a wrong assumption rather than click the link to find out what list it is. --Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I guess that you're right; damn uninspired no link clickers! The reason I bought it up is that I have been seeing them more lately and there is not a direct way to translate that into Infobox Settlement. But if we're unsure, then it's best to leave it alone. Thanks, —MJCdetroit (yak) 13:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it would be possible to leverage the population_footnotes and area_footnotes fields for this purpose, at least if they're not otherwise used in a given article.--Kotniski (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

in fact voivodeships are very often called provinces, and this alternative name is certainly in use. Where for example ? Lothar25 (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find it on Google (admittedly far fewer hits than Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship - possibly thanks to the great unifying influence of Wikipedia - but still a significant number). And we should certainly mention that voivodeships are sometimes called provinces (and indeed are provinces for the average English speaker), otherwise many people won't understand what the article is about.--Kotniski (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see the point. Still need some references (as far as WP:VER is concerned). Thanks, Lothar25 (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clesh Input

Many many thanks for taking the time to help interpret the Polish article references for Clesh. mk (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I'm not commenting in the Clesh AfD because of Conflict of Interest - but am interested in knowing what this Polish article actually says. It is not included in the article, but looks like a substantial review and it may be a useful independent source of information about how the system works. It doesn't seem to be a blog (it doesn't appear to be self-published), so could be a useful reference. Would it be possible for you to translate it? Or if it looks OK but is is too long or detailed to translate, perhaps you could add some of the important points to the Wikipedia article, if that is appropriate. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This is a different reference from the two I deleted, and is certainly much more relevant. I don't really have time to translate it all, but it's a very positive review, which ends by saying "decidedly the best editor in its class". I'm not sure it really contains any new encyclopedic information though.--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It may be worth adding during the AfD phase. And I can certainly use it on my own website :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explain

Why do you add German names in article about mountains in Poland and Czech Republic ? Shouls we add Warsaw(Warschau), Poznań(Posen) to list of Polish cities ? There is no reason to have German names in this article, the mountains are not in Germany, only place for German names in historic context. Performing such moves will lead to situation when we have Wrocław(Breslau) listed as city in Poland. Not to mention Polish names for Czech mountains aren't mentioned despite the fact they are the border. Germany hasn't a border yet its names are mentioned.For what reason ? I see no explanation and no reason to use them in this article. Thus they shall be removed.--Molobo (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

They were in Germany not so long ago; people might see the German names on maps etc. If people want to know the German names for Warsaw etc. they can find them in the articles; but most of these mountains do not have their own articles, so this is the only place for the information. --Kotniski (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Poznan, Warsaw were in Germany not a long time ago just as well. On what Wiki policy do you base your decision ? They are established naming conventions, there is no place for German names in articles about modern Poland or Czech cities or locations if they are not within historic context. Once the articles are made the name used Germanisation of Poland and Czech states can be mentioned. Please do not insert German names into modern articles or locations which could suggests this name is valid and not historic. As no Wiki policy has been mentioned as basis of this decision and no logical reason the names will be removed. Also you added obsolete German names to mountains that have their own articles where the no-longer valid name is mentioned. If your rationale is indeed as you claim it would be good to remove those names, as readers can find the name of Germanisation period in proper article-see Chojnik for example. Will you do that ? I am ready to compromise on this issue.--Molobo (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Better to keep the same format for all the items on the list. It's made pretty clear elsewhere in the article that the range is in PL/CZ. This isn't about any policy, just common sense and how to present information so that readers can make the best use of it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand you.You said these names from Germanisation period are because they are no articles to move them. Yet when faced with the fact that articles exist you don't want to move them there ? Why ? Will you agree to remove names from Germanisation period once all of those mountains have their own articles ? Of course there is no common sense in confusing the readers that Polish and Czech states use names from Germanisation period for their territories, but that is another matter. --Molobo (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if all or most of them had their own articles, there wouldn't be any need for the German names here. It just looks strange to me to have most of the German names present and to omit the others; readers wouldn't necessarily get why. And having a German name in brackets clearly marked "German" is hardly going to mislead anyone; that's perfectly common practice in Wikipedia (like we have Polish names in brackets after names of places now in Ukraine etc.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Proposed_change_to_policy

I was reading some of your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Proposed_change_to_policy, and ran across "It's the current policy which enables administrators to protect the page they like best, by timing their protection accordingly. Or to simply not care. The proposal would force admins to explain their actions." I think you have a strong point with that case, for I think that if administrators are simply waiting to protect a page until it reverts back to a version they like, we should attempt to quell that attitude right away - they are not being unbiased, and they're being sneaky about it. I first hope that there are few administrators who do that (is there evidence of it?). Forcing them to explain themselves is a good way to stop that practice, but it seems like the current proposal opens whole new cans of worms. Could there be alternative options to still address that problem? -- Natalya 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't know of any evidence of this happening, but knowing human nature, it no doubt does from time to time. It was actually suggested in that discussion as a valid method of ensuring the right version gets protected, and given the current policy, I think it would be justified sometimes by common sense. But clearly it would be better if such techniques were neither needed nor tolerated - one reason for the change in policy (sadly rejected). If I come up with any other ideas to solve the problem (i.e. ideas which might actually stand a chance of getting approved), I'll let you know. Cheers,--Kotniski (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Your hard work is appreciated, even if so many people objected to the idea. Way to stick through it. -- Natalya 15:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong interlink

I removed the pl interwikilink from Protected areas of Poland, as the pl:Ochrona przyrody w Polsce is something related but different.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Chyba nie ma - odpowiednikiem byłoby coś o terenach chronionych w Polsce. Ochrona przyrody w Polsce powinna byc przetlumaczona do osobnego artykulu jako Conservation ethic in Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian POV edits on List of Ukrainians and Stefan Banach

You made a number of anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian edits on List of Ukrainians and Stefan Banach.

On more than one occasion, you deleted the references to sourced facts without any explanation on the talk/discussion pages.

You attempted to archive the discussion page Talk:Stefan_Banach, thus attempting to prevent the participants of the discussion from arriving to the NPOV.

You attempt to camouflage your anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian POV edits as pro-Polish.

Please stop.

Wikipedia is not the right forum for manifestation of your anti-Western and anti-Freedom views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I needed a chuckle.--Kotniski (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising the NCGN discussion

I think it may be a good idea to advertise it at Czech, German, Polish and other affected regional noticeboards.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dabbing

Dabbing is being done by hand for places, and I would welcome anybody who can help out ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does the task involve? I could probably do it for Poland.--Kotniski (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
We need to dab all the articles for towns and villages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places befor the User:FritzpollBot runs. But I thought your KotBot created all the articles on towns in poland. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, for Poland we'll probably do it a bit differently - somehow combining the two sets of data generated by the two bots. Will solve that problem when we come to it.--Kotniski (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tennis names

How come then Ana Ivanović was moved to Ana Ivanovic? There is consensus only for Serbian players or what? If you reverted all my moves then I expect you to move Ana Ivanovic to Ana Ivanović too. --Avala (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything, but if I did have that power, I would certainly be moving Ivanovic back to Ivanović as well.--Kotniski (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your wikipedia proposal

I've moved it to Wikipedia:Use diacritics; proposed policies shouldn't really be in the mainspace. sorry to be a bother! i'm looking over it at the moment seeing if i can help/comment in any way. Ironholds 05:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that, I need a coffee or something.--Kotniski (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Haha, no problem. It was a good faith edit and it's not disruptive or anything. I cant give you a coffee, but have a cookie. Ironholds 05:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironholds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Please stop archiving the on-going discussion on Stefan Banch

Please stop archiving the on-going discussion of Stefan Banach.

This discussion page is not large enough to justify archiving.

You will not be allowed to censor the discussion by moving it into the archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion policy

Thanks for the clarifiation of my objective at Deletion policy. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

  1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
  2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnWtalk 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)