User talk:Nihil novi/Archive 2

Passwords

Please ask pythonessofdelphi to tell me my password.(I'm Ooppss already used)

Polish war films

Hi, it's me, Varlaam (talk).
I have been working a lot on my other page recently, List of films based on war books. I have been finding a lot of relevant Polish films. Wajda. Movies based on Sienkiewicz.

But I'm not expert in this area. Maybe if you?? took a quick look??? you would notice some things???? that were missing.

It's just an idea, if you are not too busy. And it might be fun!

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll certainly keep it in mind.

My compliments on your expert work with "Assassinations in fiction." Nihil novi (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Łazienki Park renamed to Royal Baths ???

I see the article on Łazienki has been renamed (by you?? not sure). I lived in Warsaw for 5 years and never heard the name 'Royal Baths' applied to it in the expat English community. English language guidebooks (at least the ones I have) call it Łazienki or 'Royal Łazienki'. Is there some source for the 'Royal Baths' name? I understand it is a translation, but it doesn't strike me as common usage. What do you think? (ps your username reminds me of the phrase 'nic nowego nic dobrego' - how one of my colleagues often answered the morning 'co słychać?' itd.) Stumps (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I follow your point. The rendering of foreign names in English-language contexts does often pose quandaries: to leave the name in its original form, or to translate it—and if so, how? At one extreme, one might render a Chinese name into "English" in its original Chinese characters; at the other extreme, one might render, say, a female Chinese name in "literal" English translation as "Golden Flower." An intermediate approach is Romanized transcription, e.g., "Mao Zedong."

"Park Łazienkowski" or "Baths Park"?

"Ogród Saski" or "Saxon Garden"?

"Pałac Kultury" or "Palace of Culture"?

"Pałac Prezydencki" or "Presidential Palace"?

"Pałac pod Czterema Wiatrami" or "Palace of the Four Winds"?

"Pałac pod Blachą" or "Copper-Roof Palace?

"Kościół św. Krzyża" or "Holy Cross Church"?

It is hard to expect non-Poles to remember, much less to pronounce, the original Polish names. It in no way nullifies the authentic Polish name, to offer Anglophones an English interpretation. Nihil novi (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Canaletto

I have conducted a review of this article which has a large number of issues which need attention. I have delisted it. The reassessment is at Talk:Canaletto/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Scouts Cross

I have reverted your name change, article titles don't end in a period. I have also reverted your recent edits as they go against WPScouting MoS. Scouting is always capitalized in this sense in English. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Władysław Heinrich

On July 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Władysław Heinrich, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Józef Gołuchowski

Re. the above article and your other contributions on Polish philosophers, I have been enormously instructed and intrigued by your work. Keep it up! You are a first class Wikipedian & scholar. Orthorhombic (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; nice to hear from you! At university I fantasized auditing any class that intrigued me—an impracticable aspiration. Years later, I thought I might be happy helping edit a general-interest magazine. Wikipedia has enabled me in a way to fulfill these inclinations, and I endeavor to cultivate a few small plots of the common garden. Your own experience may have been similar. Nihil novi (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dewikilinking

Have you noticed that the things you have dewikilinked in History of the world are themselves questionable turns of phrase? Abductive (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links you've put in! I've delinked only two. "East Coast of the United States", for Europe's "Atlantic seaboard", is an error. "Sedentary lifestyle" was a poor original choice of term for "settled lifestyle". Nihil novi (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that people refer to Europe's Atlantic coast as "Atlantic seaboard". That term is confined to the US and (weirdly) South Africa. A Google image search shows that nicely. Abductive (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My Webster's defines "seaboard" as "land near or bordering on the sea; seacoast. adj., bordering on the sea." But if you feel strongly against "seaboard" in the European context, I won't object strenuously to substituting "Atlantic seacoast states"—though "seaboard" does somehow sound to me less frivolous. Nihil novi (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've cut the Gordian knot and simply deleted "seaboard". Nihil novi (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Good solution, that article seems to be difficult to manage. Abductive (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your links are a helpful contribution. Nihil novi (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm testing out this tool I discovered. It is handy for finding articles to potentially link to, but I need to look more closely at its suggestions. Abductive (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:French people of Polish descent

Nihil novi: Please go to Chopin's talk page where I left a comment stating my disagreement on Chopin included in category of French people of Polish descent. Pozdrawiam, Frania W. (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Stuff we talked about

• Jacek Dukaj - Ice (Dukaj novel), Inne pieśni, and here's a passage I translated
• Jacek Kaczmarski - check youtube for his stuff
• Free culture / Baen's Bar

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the leads. A couple for you:

• Tom Lehrer
• Eternal return

What was Littlepage's first name?

Your "Black Oceans" reads well, though I wonder whether it shouldn't be "Monad Wars" rather than "Monads Wars"? It would be interesting to compare your text with Jacek Dukaj's original. Nihil novi (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be Louis Littlepage. Thanks for the note about the Polish Institute; shame that the Polish Review is not online. I may consider writing something for them for my CV, but if they are not free online, I consider such an effort mostly wasted compared to the impact of writing another Wikipedia article. If you know the editors, perhaps you can ask them to consider switching to the open publishing system? PS. This is also why I prefer the Sarmatian Review - it may not be freely licensed, but at least it's free to read online.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Most journals are now online, although many are not free. Since there are many open publishing journals out there, it has proven to be a viable economic model, although a lot of older academicians and editors, particularly those who don't really understand what the Internet is, are opposing the idea of free online publishing. I believe that the non-free ones are both a dying breed and a treason to the science ideal of being for the public (see open publishing for details). I could certainly consider helping out, but whether they would consider a mere graduate student for an editor - I doubt it. And no, I have not recently talked to Professor Gromada (I vaguely recall I might have tried to email him over some issue in the past). As I haven't published anything scholarly on Poland, I very much doubt it I have ever showed on his radar (and the same holds true for Wikipedia - and most academics out there... but that's another issue). PS. I've just read your email - thanks for mentioning me to him, if he does contact me I'll be more than happy to correspond with him, and explain the advantages of a free online publication to him. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Madeleine Masson

On August 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Madeleine Masson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Chrystian Piotr Aigner

On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chrystian Piotr Aigner, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 17:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Move

I noticed you finally settled established determined the name of the commission that settled established determined place names... [1] Much appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the many constructive contributions that you made to the discussion. Only the participation of more than one individual with an excellent command of English could have overcome the reservations of native-Polish Wikipedians. Thanks for your well-informed and public-spirited participation! Nihil novi (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for AVA Radio Company

On September 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article AVA Radio Company, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Edward Fokczyński

Seems dykable, too. Go for it! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"... that Edward Fokczyński knew that Poland had solved Germany's Enigma ciphers, but kept the secret before being worked and starved to death at Sachsenhausen?"

The alternative would be:

"... that Edward Fokczyński, co-director of the AVA Radio Company, which worked for Poland's Cipher Bureau, had a 4th-grade education?"

Nihil novi (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

While reverting ([2]) please add a comment in the edit summary and/or comment on talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Fokczyński

On October 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Fokczyński, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Ed (talk • contribs) 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Kordian

Perhaps you'd be interested in helping me expand this article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have good sources that will provide in-line citations? Of materials at my disposal, Miłosz's History of Polish Literature is too general and presupposes ignorance of Polish literature; while my Polish-language histories assume a good general knowledge and tend to be too detailed. The one is amateurish, the others—over-professional.

The Polish Wikipedia article might make a start, but—as is often the case with the Polish Wikipedia--has no in-line citations.

If you can expand your article, I could copy-edit it.

Thanks for the suggestion about the Edward Fokczyński DYK. Nihil novi (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I know expanded Kordian to DYK. I would, actually, like to improve Juliusz Słowacki to GA (he was a patron of my high school), but while I think I can do a good job with his biography, I am not very knowledgeable in the issues of Polish literature and philosophy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've copy-edited Kordian. Please check whether I've inadvertently distorted your intent. Nice article. Good luck! Nihil novi (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll add GAing Słowacki to my list of things to do :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict?

[3]? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what happened. Please restore your content.

Has it in fact been decided that the scope of your activities is to be restricted? (I find it difficult to closely follow all the Byzantine politics at Wikipedia.) If so, it would be a great loss, and not just for Polish-related sectors.

On the other hand, Władysław Tatarkiewicz recounts in his autobiography that, when a rival got him ousted from his chair at Warsaw University, it turned out to be a blessing in disguise because it enabled Tatarkiewicz to complete and publish several of his major works.

I would appreciate it if you would keep me posted. Nihil novi (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. Thank you for your kind words so far, it really helps me to know that there are still those who appreciate my work. On the subject of byzantine politics, have you seen my creation from few months back on byzantinism? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the Byzantinism article.

You have created a very respectable, solid body of work on Wikipedia. Think what you must accomplish if you devote comparable time and effort to composing original works of scholarship for publication in other venues! Nihil novi (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Message from Masterpiece2000

Hi Nihil novi. I am back on wikipedia. Glad to know that you have created an archive. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! Welcome back! Nihil novi (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Minor sabotage

I've chosen mały sabotaż as my newest DYK. Any thoughts on the correct name of that article? If yes, please comment at Talk:Minor sabotage to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Copernicus monument

Thanks for the help, I've nominated it at DYK - perhaps you can come up with a different hook? See Template_talk:Did_you_know#Nicolaus_Copernicus_Monument_in_Warsaw. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a good hook. The best alternative, I think, would have referred to the Polish underground's World War II minor-sabotage operation. Either choice makes a strong hook.

Thanks for writing the article. It is very worthwhile, especially in view of the current campaign by some Germans to retroactively grant Copernicus German citizenship. Nihil novi (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The minor sabotage hook was used recently when that article was DYKed (see Talk:Minor sabotage). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw

Hello! Your submission of Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 09:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC) ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 09:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Edelman

Instead of reverting with no edit summaries, could you please discuss on the talk page? Thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw

On October 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 07:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Zamojski Academy

Needs merging. It would be nice to expand it and DYK it... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, early on I didn't know you had started an article on the Zamojski Academy.

I've transferred some material into the new article from the earlier one, and added some more. I think it would be good to keep the new title.

The article would probably need more information, to qualify for DYK. Do you have access to some?

Congratulations on your fine "Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw" article and DYK! Nihil novi (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your title is better; unfortunately I no longer have the power to move it. Try listing it at non-controversial WP:RMs. I will see if I can expand it over the next few days. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, what is needed is to delete "Akademia Zamojska." How does one accomplish that? Nihil novi (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What is needed is a merge, redirect and then a history merge :) I'll list it where it needs to be be for admin attention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you used Encyklopedia Polski or PWN in the article, please indicate where with footnotes. General references become obsolete as soon as we are adding inlines; hence I am moving them to further reading (but without page numbers they are almost useless anyway). I am adding a lot of external links / further reading, I hope you can use them to further expand the article (I may not have time to do more right away). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I did provide pagination in the in-line citations. Please see "notes." Nihil novi (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for DYK, hook here (feel free to suggest alts). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stephen Mizwa

A tag has been placed on Stephen Mizwa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RaseaC (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Toruń

On November 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Toruń, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Zamojski Academy

On November 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zamojski Academy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 05:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Krystyna Skarbek

Hi, I noticed you removed my most recent image descriptions from under the photographs without adding anything of yours.[4] I'm not sure if words I selected were the best, but there was a reason I put these descriptions there. When I glanced at the article for the first time, there was nothing under the b/w photographs to explain why they illustrate this particular article at all, and it bothered me. Please note that according to Wikipedia:Captions guideline: "Along with the title, the lead, and section headings, captions are the most commonly read words in an article ". Captions help to establish the most immediate points of reference, i.e.: whether the face belongs to her husband, or to her assassin? Giving just names of these individuals, especially the first one: a man with peripheral significance in Skarbek's life, was not informative enough.

And also, I would appreciate if you refrained from reverting my improvements in formatting. According to our style guideline a single section "Notes and references" is quite OK and it does not have to be split in two, per Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions. This is a matter of visual proportions for me as a designer, because fewer appendix sections at the bottom of the article make the Table of Content a lot more comprehensive. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A little less arrogance on your part would be helpful. You, for example, caption Kopański as "chief of staff" in a period when he was not yet in that post. You also originally captioned Voigt as "the SIS contact," when he was certainly not the world's only SIS contact. Combining "notes" and "references" as a single "Notes and references" is not only unnecessary—indeed, pointless—but makes the table of contents ungainly. Nihil novi (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Delfina Potocka

This would have to be one of the least useful reversions I've seen in quite some time. Maybe I should explain my original edit:

• In the parentheses in the lead, after the name, it's standard practice to have:
  • the vital dates alone, or
  • the dates followed by the names of the places,
  • but not the names of the places followed by the dates.

• In the paragraph starting "Potocka's friendships ...", we have Chopin and Krasiński each mentioned twice. If anything, a link to their articles should occur at their first mention - but only their second mention is linked. However, they're both linked earlier on in the same section, so there's no justification for any links to their articles in this paragraph.

• In my browser, the "D flat" is split over 2 lines, so it reads initially as "Waltz in D". I rectified that.

Was there anything there that was so objectionable? Really? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've reversed back to your changes. Personally, I like birth and death dates linked in the lead, rather than separated by geographical entities. Nihil novi (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I like your changes, to which I've added just a few tweaks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Parable

Not sure why you are rm referenced material to parable without explanation. In the future when you delete referenced material it is better to explain why you are doing this or discuss it on the talk page. Otherwise, some editors may conclude that it it vandalism. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling a parable a kind of analogy seems pointless, since the same could be said of just about any literary genre. Nihil novi (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Chopin

I'm willing to be broad-minded and flexible on this matter, but I would appreciate a logical explanation as to why an individual born in Poland to a Polish mother and French father, and who then emigrated to France, and who then acquired French citizenship, would not qualify as a Polish-French composer? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

See the article's "Nationalism" section. See also "Mikołaj Chopin" on how Chopin's father viewed his own nationality, after he had assimilated to Polish language and culture. (He did not speak to his family in French, and Chopin never fully mastered the French language.) Chopin took out French citizenship purely as a matter of convenience, living in France and not wanting to return to a Poland ruled by the partitioning powers. Nihil novi (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All well and good, but as I've mentioned before Idi Amin was not Scottish, nor King of Scotland. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But Chopin did not identify himself as French, and drew his musical inspiration principally from Polish folk music. Nihil novi (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I'm willing to be broad-minded and flexible on this matter. Your response... (he)"drew his musical inspiration principally from Polish folk music"...,"took out French citizenship purely as a matter of convenience"...,..."Chopin did not identify himself as French"... Nicolas Chopin "did not speak to his family in French" are all stretches bordering on opinions. Can any of those statements be attributed to Chopin? Again, I would appreciate a logical explanation as to why an individual born in Poland to a Polish mother and French father, and who then emigrated to France, and who then acquired French citizenship, would not qualify as a Polish-French composer? Please understand I am very well aware that Poland was dear to Chopin and was very important to him. It doesn't negate the fact that he was half French, nor that he spent half of his life in France. This is more of a case similar to Marie Curie or Joseph Conrad than to Jan Dzierzon or Copernicus. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nihil novi & Dr. Dan, My apologies for barging in, but I came here to leave a note to Nihil novi & came upon your conversation. I have one question: when did Chopin "acquire" French citizenship? Has anyone come up with a copy of his naturalisation papers? If so, I really would like to see it, because I believe (please read comment I left at talk page [5]) that he had dual nationality at birth, thus did not need to "acquire" French nationality. *

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your eloquent clarification of Chopin's relationship to the Dziewanowski family. - Martin Kunert-Dziewanowski, representing the family —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkunert (talk • contribs) 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A pleasure to have helped. We are all indebted for the correction concerning the circumstances of Chopin's acquaintance with Szafarnia—a very important episode in his life. Is your family by any chance related to the late historian Marian Kamil Dziewanowski? Nihil novi (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Copernicus

Please restore phrase about Polish students in German Natio. All Polish students even in Renaissance were joint to German Natio in all european universities (even Jan Kochanowski and Jan Zamoyski). References added above are misguiding inputing that German speaking people from Silesia and Prussia from Poland joint German natio. It was only geographical nor linguistic or national difference thanx Mathiasrex (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you add substantive information such as this, rather than merely a sentence that, as phrased, only repeats the preceding sentence. If you have difficulty expressing your thought clearly in English, give me your thought in Polish and I'll render it into English. Nihil novi (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why remove lesser's image of copernicus death? --DuKu (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Copernicus died after a stroke. Lesser shows him seated—which I can't picture, following an ultimately fatal stroke. Also, the crowd scene at his death-chair seems a bit contrived.

My preference is for art from Copernicus' time, or nearly so, and for architecture that he knew. Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explanation. --DuKu (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Karkonosze#Poll_II

There has been a new and expanded preferential poll created on Talk:Karkonosze similar to the recent Ireland poll. The votes from the previous poll could unfortunately not be transferred over to the new system and you may need to recast your vote. I apologise for the inconvenience. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for reflinking and copy-editing that little spate of edits. I feel like I recognize your username from around here... (feel free to delete this section it's rather a waste of space) --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to De revolutionibus orbium coelestium‎... and for not reflexly condemning my little punctuation emendations. (A glance at my talk page will show that not everyone has been as indulgent as you!) Yes, I've been taking some interest in Copernicus. I look forward to seeing you around. Nihil novi (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just wanted to reiterate the value of sourcing. If you have time to find explicit (in-text) citations as you make edits that'd be wonderful. The unsourced stuff isn't very helpful as they're often (not unreasonably) deleted, and those who do find sources will probably rewrite them (doubling time expended).--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

SF Meetup #11

In the area? You're invited to
San Francisco Meetup # 11
	Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2010
	Time: 15:00 (3PM)
	Place: WMFoundation offices
prev: Meetup 10 - next: Meetup 12

This is posted to the groups by request. Please sign up on the Invite list for future announcements. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Legitimacy_(law)

Did you see the message I left in the talk page? Vistium (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Józef Gosławski (Polish sculptor)

Hello! I saw that you improved article about Chopin monument. I translated a part of article about his author from Polish Wikipedia. Can you look through a tables with competitions and exhibits? I don't speak English well, so I could make a few mistakes... TR (my talk) 14:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm!

Nihil novi,

Do you have an alarm on Chopin's article that warns you of any visitor? My "age *of*" did not last very long!

do witz... --Frania W. (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The "of" was superfluous. Come to think of it, so is "age." Nihil novi (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

DYKs

I've nominated you for the DYK 25 award, as you qualify for it (I count 26 DYK creations/expansions on your user talk and archive) here. For future awards, you may want to collect your DYKs or notifications in a list on a separate subpage. Thank you for your hard work! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That many? How time flies! Thank you. And welcome back! You have been missed. Nihil novi (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations for reaching the milestone of 25 articles that you have created or expanded, appearing at "Did you know?" on the Main page. Great work, adding articles about notable Poles and more. Welcome to the WP:DYKLIST! Binksternet (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Biuro Szyfrów

As one of the primary editors of this article I wanted to let you know that someone submitted the Biuro Szyfrów article for GA. I reviewed the article, placed it on hold and left some comments on the talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good job on all the fixes. I promoted the article today--Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Enigma decryption after PC Bruno

My sources seem to imply that the Poles worked on other ciphers than Enigma after they left PC Bruno. What do your sources say?--TedColes (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've placed some sources pertinent to this question in a new note #43 to "Biuro Szyfrów." I wish I had a definitive answer. Perhaps other sources may eventually resolve the question. Nihil novi (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

page blanking

If this was intentional, "your bad". You left no edit summary and for this type of edit you have to let other editors know what your doing. Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I hope the last edit summary to "Fables and Parables" will be satisfactory. Nihil novi (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

NC

Hi, I am afraid your latest entry is synthesis again because it relates one unrelated source, on the Polish Renaissance writers, to another, the absence of evidence for NC' Polish language skills, to come to the conclusion C. That is WP:Synthesis, see first sentence. What we rather need is a source which makes explicitly the connection between the low status of Polish in NC's days and the lack of evidence for NC having a command of Polish. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding what you're saying. The present note 37 is all from a single source: Mikoś.

As to synthesis, I don't see why the assertion that Copernicus knew Polish, which is made by several authors who have been cited, should be more a synthesis than the view that "German should be considered Copernicus' native language" because Toruń (Thorn) was predominantly German-speaking, because Copernicus wrote a letter in German to a German-speaking (and possibly non-Latin-fluent) Duke Albert, and because Copernicus joined the German natio (an organization open also to German-speaking non-Germans) at Bologna. Nihil novi (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Jan Dzierzon

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. 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kotniski" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soujdspo (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Takie jest rowniez moje przypuszczenie. Wyglada to na przywlaszczanie sobie cudzych luminarzy. Udaje sie dlatego, ze wiele osob bezkrytycznie przyjmuje statystyki oparte na falszowanej wczesniej historii. Nihil novi (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My tutaj studiowalismy biografie Dzierzona od lat. Jesli nawet nie mamy jakiejs pozycji to ja potrafimy znalezdz w biblitekach uniwesyteckich w Ameryce czy Europie. Niestety zlosliwosc niektorych Niemcow blokuje nasze wysilki z naszego miasta i uniwersytetu. Wszystkich posadzaja o bycie Serafin'em i blokuja dostep wszytkim co chca dzialac zgodnie ze wspolna wiedza. Jesli potrzebujesz jakichkolwiek wiadomosci naukowych skontaktuj sie z nami przez erudra@hotmail.com

My mistake

Nihil novi,

When I read your revision at Chopin's article, I had not gone enough far back; so my comment was not accurate & I removed it. I left you an apology. I also removed anything (written by me) that did not make any sense anymore since based on a mistake.

Best regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Copernicus

This article is on my watchlist and I caught your recent edit [6]. Like yourself, I'm most interested in keeping this article factual and correct. You mentioned that you would appreciate being contacted should any mistakes be noted. Specifically you stated "Please let us know, should you find other errors, in that section of the article or elsewhere." Who is us? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The collegial body of Wikipedia editors... and The New York Times, which made the mistake. Nihil novi (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing history - notice

I have brought up an issue regarding your editing history - and how I feel about your recent participation at nationality disputes - here [7]. Novickas (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nihil, I believe you are a restart of User:Logologist. The applicable policy, WP:CLEANSTART, has changed since then. It now asks that you declare yourself when re-engaging in former disputes. Since Logologist engaged and !voted in Copernicus disputes [8] and you still engage there [9] [10] [11], I ask that you either 1) dispute here that you are Logo restarted, in which case I'll file an SPI; 2) withdraw from PL nationality issues.

Supposing I file the SPI and there's agreement that you're a restart of Logo. That opens another question, whether you ought to declare or withdraw from other disputes wrt to Polish nationality apart from Copernicus. You may feel that the wording of CLEANSTART is narrow enough to mean no more than the specific articles where Logo or their socks engaged in nationality issues. I would interpret it more broadly, but that's up to the community.

The least amount of fuss option: you state here that you'll withdraw from all such, leave the statement up for at least ten minutes, then delete this section if you wish. My part would be to not mention it again if you adhere to it. Novickas (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI here [12]. Novickas (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the first section of your response at the SPI concerned the sockpuppetry policy, I've asked about it at the sockpuppetry policy talk page. [13]

Are you or are you not a restart of Logologist? Novickas (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your help in making sure that Wikipedia is not written in various dialects of Engrish, mine of included - a thousand thanks! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could help

With Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Time permitting, I'll be glad to help. Nihil novi (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

2 Questions on Copernicus

Dear Nihil novi, Its not a big deal to me but I generally introduce commas to wiki articles because when I studied in University in the mid-1990s, my professors would deduct marks from my papers if I did not have the proper apostrophes--and commas--in them. So, I was trying to increase wikipedia's standards on Copernicus to a slightly more academic level when I inserted a comma in say: "In 1526[,] Copernicus wrote a study on the value of money," because I knew that my professors would expect that kind of minor copyediting. Of course, no one claims ownership over any article but I thought that the lack of a comma is just the kind of stuff that causes academics to denigrate Wikipedia as a so-called 'second rate source of information.' I notice you reverted my edit here and that's your call but I assure you my edit was done in good faith.

As for my 2 questions: I have a Hammond map atlas book which contains excellent maps of most of the European countries and their provinces. It shows all the local administrative centres of Poland and the cities from Copernicus' time such as Olsztyn, Torun and, of course, Krakow and Warsaw. But...there is no Frombork anywhere. It does not even rate a mention. Is this because Frombork is a relatively minor town in a big country like Poland? There is a reference to the region of Warmia but that is all. Perhaps Frombork is a bit similar to Stratford Upon Avon--Shakespeare's hometown--which also does not appear in my map book for England but is world famous for being the hometown of Shakespeare.

My final question concerns Copernicus himself. I see that you are a member of Wikipedia Poland. So, maybe? you can answer this short personal question on him. I saw on the discussion page of Copernicus' english wikipedia article here that he was apparently never ordained as a priest himself. What does this mean? Was Copernicus a church assistant of some kind who partipated in the church mass in a secondary function or did he have other church duties other than serving the laity (common people)? It seems strange that he would be serving at Frombork church and much respected for all his deeds in serving the Polish king and facing death at Olsztyn and yet he was never a priest in his own right. It seems a contradiction but I suppose I am living in the wrong time period today and imposing 20th century standards on a 16th century man. In the 15th and 16th century, I feel certain that everyone recognised Copernicus' brilliance at economics, math, the law, etc and the fact that he was practically a national hero for his valour on behalf of Poland in its darkest hour that no one would question how he lived his life for a second. At least, he seems to have been a man of impeccable integrity who did not have affairs with women and always obeyed his king without much hesitation. A man with Copernicus' abilities comes around perhaps once every 100 years. But if you have a reply on his religious duties, I would be honoured to hear it.

PS: It was appropriate to see on TV the Polish Army guard at Copernicus' reburial at Frombork recently and know that Poland remembers his deeds even almost 460 years after his death. I never thought that Copernicus himself was a military leader....until I read his wikipedia article. With Best Regards from Vancouver, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I once visited British Columbia and enjoyed it very much.

You are quite right. It is customary to place a comma after an introductory phrase — but it is not de rigueur after a short one; and after such a short phrase, a comma can create a choppy effect.

Frombork, when I visited it some years ago, was a delightful little town, forgotten by time, at the Vistula River, on the Baltic Sea coast. Like Stratford on Avon, it is a historic giant but not a geographic one. Which may, as you suggest, explain its absence from some general maps of contemporary Poland.

I'm no expert on the medieval Catholic Church. But apparently it was a complex organization that included clerics who were not ordained priests. In any case, Copernicus performed many administrative functions, in additon to his medical, legal and military ones, that pretty well filled out his time. The wonder is that, in the midst of all these duties, he managed to find time for astronomy.

If you discover further information on these or other questions, perhaps you could share it with the rest of us. Nihil novi (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. Yes, the Roman Catholic church is a very complex organisation and in Copernicus' time, it was already very complex. That is why I am certain he could certainly have held legal, administrative and medical tasks. I don't know if he held any major political functions but I hope not--apart from helping in negotiating the peace treaty after the Oltzyn war....which was partly an administrative task. I commented about the fact about me possibly imposing 20th century standards on a 16th century person because I am Catholic too. As for Metro Vancouver, Canada, it is indeed a beautiful place to visit, but it is a very expensive place to live in because this place is surrounded by the mountains to the North, the Pacific Ocean to the West and the US border to the south. So, land (for single family homes is quite costly) Many young people either live with their parents or in condos or small homes for this reason. If you are interested, here is my WikiCommons account where I include my own photos of native Indian and European art as well as Canadian scenery and and some Canadian schools. Most of the art is from my alma mater in Vancouver, Canada. Maybe you can use some of the pictures for Polish wikipedia if you want. With best Regards Nihil novi, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much...

...for the correction and improvements on my user page. :D --Daniele.tampieri (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. I hope my suggestions were helpful. Nihil novi (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus has suggested you might be interested in participating in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration of this invitation. --Diannaa ^TALK 16:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

Please, mind the opinions.

Dear Nihil Novi:

As a professional book editor and translator (English, Spanish, German, vice versa), I understand your translator’s professional enthusiasm, yet you insert your opinions so often that the article becomes subjective, i.e. Who says that language spill-over is particular to limited-proficiency translators? If they are not your opinions, then please cite the name of the speaker. This is especially noticeable in the machine translation and Internet sections, which are over-padded . . . with opinion and weasel words — because there is little substance to such matters; the machine always is inferior to the translator and translatress. Might not “Machine translation”, “CAT”, and “Internet” become a single, substantive section? Then that triune section might not need padding.

Moreover, a history section requires dates of occurrence and publication, otherwise, the layman reader shan’t grasp the entry’s gist — because it reads as an in-crowd article for and about translators and translation. Furthermore, the image captions are editorially necessary context establishing the image-text relations that illustrate the article’s points; otherwise, they are random pictures to which the reader might remain indifferent. After all, in the reading-deficient 21st century, such are the requirements of full communication.

In the lead paragraph, communication is the purpose of the art and craft of translation, the purpose of a translation is the readers’ comprehension of the source-language text, thus why I corrected that construction; otherwise, I concur with you that the entry is not over-long, but padded; unfortunately American English tends to a prolix passive voice. I shall contribute throughout; thanks for your forebearance.

Best regards, Mhazard9 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation, please?

Do you seriously doubt that experienced translators are generally less prone than inexperienced ones to spill-over between languages?

What "padding" are you referring to?

Why do you think that in a portrait the subject's name is insufficient as caption?

How do you justify the view that "the machine always is inferior to the translator and translatress [sic]"? I've seen man-made translations that are worse than anything that a machine could perpetrate.

I regret that the changes that you have introduced do not enhance the article's precision or clarity but tend to the opposite effect. Something seems to be lost in your translation.

Nihil novi (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nihil Novi:

Thank you, for replying. The purpose of editorial work is for the article to always answer the readers’ Who? What? Where? When? and Why? queries about Translation.

Every translator risks language spillover; limiting the (unattributed) statement to inexperienced, limited-proficiency, etc., translators is an opinion. The padding is self-evident in that the two or three lines of prolix passive-voice text are spaced so far apart in order to fill space; it calls attention to the writer, not the subject. Remember, the target reader is the general reader, not translators (such as we) for whom this is “translation community” in-crowd knowledge, thus the logical expansion, because — as a European-educated man, you (might) know that in this hemisphere, schooling and education are schematic.

A full answer — In the US, where I reside, technicians (attorneys, physicians, engineers), but not laymen, tiresomely tell me that they, too, studied (English, German, Spanish), but that they haven't the time to translate a three-page document, because . . . yes . . . of course . . . quite . . . really! To most Americans, Cicero is a suburb of Chicago, Illinois (Al Capone lived there!) — not a Roman Republic politician who cautioned the translator against linguistic fidelity, lest he confront the political consequences of such intellectual honesty. Where, in Cicero’s œuvre, might I find a substantiating quotation?

The history of translation theory: “Show, don’t tell” is the writer’s purpose (cf. Heart of Darkness, J. Conrad), thus, full concordance betwixt text and image guides the (general) reader to comprehend why an historical personage is pertinent to the text, especially when the personages come from several times, cultures, and countries, because full information about Translation is the article's purpose. The (article) writer guides the reader, the article’s full information (name, title, date) instructs the reader, hence why a book title must appear upon reference, e.g. Mark Twain’s back-translation exercise; hence, my integration of your most useful, informative, and illustrative explanation of Polish having several words for this matter; reportage, not anecdote.

Business machine vs. human translator — As you accurately note in the article, such mechanical translations require human pre-editing and post-editing, thus the machine's intellectual inferiority. After all, in real life, editorial work is editorial work; the editor (substantively and mechanically) edits (pre-edits) the document then proofreads (post-edits) it after integrating the corrections, so . . . uhm . . . trendy business neologisms notwithstanding, the human translator is not dispensable — which is the “money-saving” business goal of such machines; a point I shall expand in the article, if you permit.

Your regretful umbrage notwithstanding, please, be specific and give examples of my changes that have obscured the matter, made it imprecise, and thus less than . . . so that I might correct them . . . alas, I am not W.A. Mozart, so “too many notes” is unclear. Never-the-none-the-less, thank you for this fruitful correspondence, I look forward to working and corresponding with you; ’til then, you have my

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Maria Skłodowska-Curie Museum

Hi. I've nominated Maria Skłodowska-Curie Museum, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! It looks to me like a good hook. Nihil novi (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Maria Skłodowska-Curie Museum

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

George Sand sewing

Bonjour Nihil novi,

Please go to Chopin's talk page for something I just left concerning one of your recent revisions[14].

Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin

Bonjour Nihil novi,

Wow! What quick intervention at the lead of the Chopin article[15], resulting from my "ranting" at his talk page! I agree with the way you transformed it; however, I really wish there was another word for "female": it may be zee modern way in the English language of mentioning a woman, but such an inelegant way - as a woman, it really offends me. Could not we have simply "woman novelist"?

Chopin is not mentioned as "a male Polish composer", and this article on English Wikipedia List of women writers was redirected from List of female writers[16].

--Frania W. (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

List of legally mononymous people

You may be interested in List of legally mononymous people, and helping to expand it. Thanks, Sai Emrys ¿?✍ 19:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't think that my English is too bad, but you always seem to improve it - causing only the most minor irritation. Thank you. --TedColes (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Every author can benefit from a review of his text. If I've been able to make a few useful copyedits, I am gratified. Thanks for your very substantial contributions to the articles — and for your forbearance! Nihil novi (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Amy Elizabeth Thorpe and God Forbid, but it is True - others besides Poles helped with Enigma

Hello, I am writing to you in hopes that we can end the dispute we are having about the Amy Elizabeth Thorpe article. It is obvious that your objective on Wikipedia centers on Poland and Poles, which is fine, but for those of us who only want to present a balanced view of history, I propose a compromise in the Thorpe article.

Basically, I see our disagreement as one over sources. You want only sources which indicate the first Allied input from Polish Enigma work acame in 1939 from Rejewski et al., weeks before Poland was invaded; while I wish to include sources that indicate the Allies had spies in Warsaw in at least 1938 that were giving them basic groundwork information about Enigma (although not cryptography). I have already included a sentence in the Thorpe article which shows that Polish sources dispute her role, but this does not apparently satisfy your work in policing Poland's WW2 reputation. In order to end this tiresome argument, what addition to the Thorpe article would you propose that will adequately present your POV which does not acknowledge any help from Thorpe in Poland in 1938 about Enigma?

Leidseplein (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thorpe again

I've found some really serious issues in your additions to Amy Elizabeth Thorpe, and have removed them as such. You can find my notes on the talk page there. Let's discuss your edits before you readd them to the article. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Historic recurrence nominated for AfD

I noticed this AfD debate, and also noticed you've edited the article quite a bit. I wanted to let you know. Cullen328 (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've placed information about G.W. Trompf, The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought, from Antiquity to the Reformation, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1979, ISBN 0-520-03479-1, in the AfD. Nihil novi (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added, to the article, G.W. Trompf's summary of major views and paradigms of historic recurrence. Thank you for the suggestion. Nihil novi (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. When you have a moment, please add the full reference to the article footnotes. I would do it but haven't read the book, so best that you do it. Cullen328 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The full title and bibliographic information for Trompf's book appears (3rd item) in the "References" section. Generally an abbreviated version is placed in the footnotes. Nihil novi (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of your historic recurrence article. It is total bs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.165.69 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your personal essay that continues to be on wikipedia historic recurrence is the reason I lost faith in wikipedia entirely. I check back on it every few months and no matter what happens, you always turn it back the way you want it. You're pushing a personal philosophy and masquerading it as being a strand of historical thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.240.30 (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

English grammar, Polish names

I'd appreciate your input at Talk:Davids' Psalter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is Henryk Suchanek-Suchecki? ("Prometheism")

Who is Henryk Suchanek-Suchecki? Corduroyalmond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Who are Bohdan Kutylowski, Witold Jodko (Witold Jodko-Narkiewicz, 1864–1924 ?), Marian Szumlakowski (Marian Szumlakowski, 1893–1961 ?), Mirosław Arciszewski (Mirosław Arciszewski, 1892-1963 or 1877-1955 ?), Ignacy Matuszewski (Ignacy Matuszewski, 1891–1946 ?), Stanisław Szober (the Polish philologist, 1879-1938 ?), Marian Kościałkowski-Zyndham (Marian Zyndram-Kościałkowski, 1892–1946 ?), Adam Skwarczyński (1886-1934 ?), Zaćwilichowski, Marian Józef Smoleński (generally known as "Józef Smoleński", 1894-1978 ?), Kazimierz Ciastoń, Tadeusz Kobylański (Tadeusz Kobylański, 1895–1967 ?)—to list only the other unidentified Poles in "Prometheism"?

It is customary to highlight individuals who have no article of their own, in order to bring attention to them so that someone with access to information may write articles about them. Nihil novi (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

C/e for Stanisław Koniecpolski

I am preparing to push this article towards GA and FA. If you were to find some time and will to see how it reads, I'd appreciate it! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. The article should be reviewed for accuracy and missing links. Nihil novi (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Province

To Sylwia Ufnalska (talk):

Welcome to the English Wikipedia. It's a pleasure to encounter someone who exercises common sense.

The only semi-rational argument that I have seen on the English Wikipedia for rendering "województwo" as "voivodship" or "voivodeship," with the "e" (as some of our "experts" insisted at the end), is that, until the final partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, "prowincyja" designated the Commonwealth's major regions—chiefly, Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

It seems to me, however, foolish to hold comprehensibility hostage to an idiosyncratic usage that has been dead for 216 years. In any case, the distinction can easily be maintained, by rendering the old "prowincyja" as "region"; thus, "Greater Poland Region," etc.

Perhaps reason will eventually prevail. Nihil novi (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! It's good to know that more people think like me. I wonder if we should make a scientific experiment to confirm that "Łódź province" is more understandable to foreigners than "Łódź voivod(e)ship" etc. and publish its results somewhere, to be able to add this statement to Wikipedia.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A few years ago, one of the English-Wikipedia proponents of rendering "województwo" as "province," stated that a major Polish government instrumentality used "province." Do you happen to know whether there is in fact an "official" Polish government rendering? (Though, even if the entire Polish government were to unanimously declare that it should be "voivod(e)ship," I would still hold with "province.")

I'm not sure what would change the minds of the voivod(e)shipians. Decisions on Wikipedia tend to be made by majority vote. The actual merits of arguments don't always count for much.

But I'm sure that a published paper such as you describe wouldn't hurt. If help were needed with its editing, please let me know. (Do you mostly translate Polish-to-English, or English-to-Polish? When I've translated, it's generally been into English, unless I had a native-speaker collaborator.)

Between the two of us, replacing "voivod(e)ship" with "province" is my last major ambition on Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I mostly translate Polish-to-English. Please see below for more comments.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Some references that support "province" for "województwo"

• [17] New Provinces of Poland (1998):
• [18] Map of Poland

Nihil novi (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks! I've noticed that both sources simply use the original, adjectival names of the provinces. This system makes back-translation easier, but it does not allow foreigners to realise that the names derive from the geographic names of regions or from names of cities. Nother disadvantage of the adjectival system is that Polish adjectival endings vary depending on gender of the following noun, so translated names of various provincial institutions in this system start with three different forms: masculine, femininine or neuter. That is why I prefer the "noun system": "Lower Silesia province", rather than "Dolnośląskie province". Moreover, the noun system mimics the rules of naming of administrative divisions in Anglophone countries. Dominus Vobisdu also prefers the noun system. Perhaps the best option would simply be to write "Lower Silesia Province (województwo dolnośląskie)" if space allows. In fact, this solution is actually preferred in the EASE Guidelines. What do you think? --Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the following comments in Voivodeship and Voivodeships of Poland:

The word "voivodeship" appears in some larger English dictionaries, such as the OED andWebster's Third New International Dictionary, but it is not in common usage. Thus, to facilitate understanding outside Poland, the word "province" is a recommended translation.

--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am pleasantly astonished at the agreement of our views. I, too, use the noun forms; as you say, that is what the English language does.

Questions will arise about province names that derive from the names of historic regions. I will venture some suggestions. I am open to negotiation.

• Greater Poland Province (województwo wielkopolskie)
• Kujawy-Pomerania Province (województwo kujawsko-pomorskie)
• Lesser Poland Province (województwo małopolskie)
• Łódź Province (województwo łódzkie)
• Lower Silesia Province (województwo dolnośląskie)
• Lublin Province (województwo lubelskie)
• Lubusz Province (województwo lubuskie)
• Mazowsze Province (województwo mazowieckie)
• Opole Province (województwo opolskie)
• Podlasie Province (województwo podlaskie)
• Pomerania Province (województwo pomorskie)
• Silesia Province (województwo śląskie)
• Subcarpathia Province (województwo podkarpackie)
• Holy Cross Province (województwo świętokrzyskie)
• Warmia-Mazury Province (województwo warmińsko-mazurskie)
• West Pomerania Province (województwo zachodniopomorskie)

Nihil novi (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the version recommended by A. Belczyk (seehttp://serwistlumacza.com/content/view/78/), based on ENglish travel guides (Lonely Planet and Rough Guide). I'm from Wielkopolska and I particularly dislike its awkward translation into Great Poland (literally WIelka Polska) or (Greater Poland (literally Większa Polska), both of which are nonsense. Like Belczyk, I also think that Lubuskie and Świętokrzyskie should be left as adjectival forms, as the nouns are hardly ever used in Polish (Lubusz is in Germany, and nobody knows that the name of Góry Świętkorzyskie derives from some relics on Łysa Góra - I've got to know about it only recently, from Wikipedia).--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I can go along with that, with two provisos: drop "the," and capitalize "Province."

Now, how and when do we implement the changes? Nihil novi (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering but I needed to think it over. We cannot force any renaming of articles - the changes would most probably be reverted anyway. Moreover, renaming requires changing of "voivodeship" into "province" everywhere in Wikipedia - which would be extremely time-consuming (but perhaps could be made by a bot designed specifically for this purpose - I could ask my friend,Kotniski, how such a bot could be made). We need to try to convince others that these changes would be beneficial. I've just added references to Belczyk once again to all articles about the present provinces of Poland. This article is particularly important, as it justifies why the changes are needed. Next, we can initiate a well-founded discussion of this problem on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Poland-related articles), which seems most suitable for this purpose. What do you think?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A discussion at "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Poland-related articles)" is a good idea, together with a notice about the discussion, placed at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland".

But first it is important to marshall all conceivable arguments (I think we've actually covered most of them on our talk pages) and, if possible, overwhelming authorities, as Wikipedia avowedly runs on authorities.

Authority is often interpreted instrumentally as statistical prevalence. For that purpose, resort is often made to Google searches.

While English-language authorities here trump Polish-language ones, it would nevertheless be helpful to cite Polish agencies, official or otherwise, that render "województwo" as "province".

At some point, appeal may have to be made to unbiased administrators or mediators, since Wikipedia discussions sometimes degenerate into brawls in which prolixity, repetitiveness, vituperation, name-calling and demagogy predominate over reasoned argument. Nihil novi (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all your suggestions. The frequency of translations of "woj. wielkopolskie" in Google seems to favour my version:

Greater Poland Voivodeship 155

Greater Poland Province 131

Wielkopolskie Province ok. 400

Wielkopolska Province ok. 660

Some major official sites using Wielkopolska Province:

[www.wielkopolska.policja.gov.pl]

[en.umww.pl]

However, the official site of the Provincial Office uses the term "Wielkopolska Voivodship Office" (note the lack of "e" in "Voivodship"). This spelling variation is an additional disadvantage of such a translation. Could you look for other examples confirming our preferences? And do you know any unbiased administrators?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder where you found the above numbers? When I used Google, I got values in the thousands and millions. When I used Google Books, I got:

Greater Poland Province: 59,700

Greater Poland Voivodeship: 1,100

Wielkopolskie Province: 283

Wielkopolska Province: 189.

There are, however, some problems with Google searches. The numbers generated can include many reflections of "mirrors", e.g., of Wikipedia articles, with their particular biases. Also, a word may be used in more than one sense — e.g., "Wielkopolska" may, in English, be either a region or a province.

I'm not very good at Google searches. Maybe someone else can help.

As to administrators, I've encountered a number of strikingly sensible ones. But you never know... Nihil novi (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"strikingly sensible ones" :-))) I've noticed that Google estimates are often greatly exagerated at the beginning, so I set the search display at 100 instead of 10 at a time (this is possible in the Polish version http://www.google.pl, but I can't find this option in the English version). Thanks to this, I can see at the bottom line of the page (under Gooooooogle) how many pages of results are ready for display. When I click the last page number, the true number of search results is shown. I'm not sure if this description is clear enough.

In the meantime, I got in touch with Arkadiusz Belczyk. He wished us good luck in our "crusade" and suggested me to emphasize that "province" is the translation recommended by all the three major Polish-English dictionaries (Fisiak, PWN-Oxford, Kościuszkowski), as well as by the influencial newspaper The Warsaw Voice.

By the way, I've realised that simultaneously we could discuss the translation of powiat and gmina. I think that county and commune" are the best options, but Belczyk suggests that "county" is "extremely Anglosaxon", so district" is a better translation of "powiat" (recommended in the past by Stanisławski's dictionary). However, "district" is now ambiguous, as the PWN-Oxford dictionary recommends it as the translation of "gmina"!!! So I think that the sequence: province-county-commune should be recommended in Wikipedia. What do you think?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. In general, if a satisfactory English equivalent exists for a generic Polish term, the English equivalent should be used. Hence I favor "province," "county," and "commune." I appreciate Mr. Belczyk's feeling about "county," but that word seems to be the predominant English equivalent; while the applications of "district" are too multifarious—"Lake District," "District of Columbia," "northern Warsaw's Żoliborz district." Nihil novi (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Powiat" is already rendered as "county" on the English Wikipedia—e.g., "Poznań County." Nihil novi (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, this is an important argument, too. So we're now nearly ready to start the discussion. I only need to ask Kotniski now if the bot could be designed easily - as this should be clear--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it at Voivodeship-County-Gmina. There are thousands of village articles (I know, I was running KotBot for Kotniski for a good percentage of creating the articles - I have a rather fast dedicated internet connection), I really don't see the need. Effort would be better spent translating . . .

(a) the geographical landforms (mezoregions and such) of Poland

(b) the National & Voivodeship Roadways of Poland

(c) the Rail Lines of Poland

(d) the river network and canals of Poland

(e) getting a lot more high-priority articles to better condition

It's a lot of effort even with reprogramming the bot to do the dirty work. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why the English "county" but the German-Polish "gmina" and the Translationese "voivod(e)ship"? Nihil novi (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I really would rather use, in English, the one expression "province" instead of "wilaya," "marz," "voblast," "khaet," "sheng," "eparchia," "ostan," "khoueng," "faritany," "aimag," "tinh"—or "województwo" (aka "voivod(e)ship"). And since the other terms are in fact translated into English as "province," then why should "województwo" not be also? Nihil novi (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point :-)))) Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether it is necessary to construct a "province bot" before advancing a proposal to substitute "province" for "voivodeship." If the principal articles are renamed, references to "voivodeships" will automatically be routed to the new "province" titles. Further title moves can be made later, gradually. Nihil novi (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I remember about our plans and want to realize them, but I must ask you to postpone them once again, until late June or early July. I'm very serious about it, so I hope that you don't give up. My old friend asked me to translate into English his habilitation dissertation, which is very urgent and very long. At the same time I'm preparing an updated version of the EASE Guidelines and I'm coordinating their translations, which must be ready before mid-June.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're in the same boat. I have some urgent translating to do, too, and likewise am serious about our mutual project. We must work by priorities, and this project will still be there in a couple of months. Additionally, it gives us more time to prepare thoroughly. Thanks for getting in touch; it's always good to hear from you. Nihil novi (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-). I'm also happy to hear from you. It's good to know that this issue is important for you, too.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Now I have more free time, at long last, so we could start the crusade if you're not very busy. By the way, please have a look at the EASE Guidelines for authors and translators of scientific articles. Do you think that we could refer to this document in the discussion? Note the sentence "If a word is used mostly in translations and only rarely in English-speaking countries, consider replacing it with a commonly known English term with a similar meaning (e.g. plant community instead of phytocoenosis)." Hoping to hear from you soon :-) Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you.

From a cursory reading, the EASE Guidelines, and your own contributions to them, seem eminently well-thought-out.

The stipulation that you quote seems especially apropos to the present question. Do you happen to know whether Wikipedia's editing recommendations include this principle? If they don't, perhaps it should be proposed.

By the way, are you familiar with George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"? When I first read it, it confirmed me in some of my own approaches to writing and translating, designed to achieve clarity and to respect readers' limited time and energy. Nihil novi (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll do my best to merit your confidence. Nihil novi (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Grammar question

See the one I posted here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Either is correct English, depending on the intended emphasis. The word closer to the end of the sentence bears the greater emphasis. So, do you want to emphasize "away from the... carcass" (as in the present title) or "slowly from the... carcass"? (Another possible variant is "slowly back away...")

Yours is a good question, which relates to some of the finer points of style and precision in writing a text. Nihil novi (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest you copy your reply to the essay's talk page, where others can join the discussion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Juliusz Słowacki

Thank you for your improvements to Koniecpolski. I have finally gotten around to improving Juliusz Słowacki's article (he was the patron of my high school..., not too mention that the articles on Three Bards really need to be beyond start level...). I am not done yet, but at any point you feel like it, your assistance with that article would be much appreciated :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. When I get past some urgent matters, I hope to look in on the Bards. Nihil novi (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the c/e-ing, the article is a Good Article now! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! I apologize for doing no editing on this article since 2009, but I hope to revisit familiar topics here after I get past some urgent writing that I must do elsewhere. Nihil novi (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

A while ago you removed the adjective "Polish" from Piłsudski's lead. Could you tell me why? I think it is reasonable to restore it, would you mind doing so if it's not a big deal? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably I deleted "Polish statesman" because it seemed redundant to describe a "Chief of State" and "authoritarian leader" as a "statesman." In any event, I have reinstated "Polish statesman." Nihil novi (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Prometheism

An interesting chapter is here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link. I'll read this source with great interest, as soon as I have a moment. Nihil novi (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Joseph Conrad. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Thanks for your edits. Yet some of them cannot be understood without some indication of your intent. Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Monitor. WikiProject Poland Newsletter: Issue 1 (April 2011)

WikiProject Poland Newsletter • April 2011 For our freedom and yours Welcome to our first issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop: we have an active assessment department. As of now, our project has tagged almost 80,000 pages as Poland-related, out of which 1,500 still need a quality assessment, and 20,000, importance assessment. we have also begun B-class quality reviews on our talk page, and if our activity increases, hopefully we will be able to institute our own A-class quality reviews. As of now, we have about 500 C-class articles in need of a B-class review. If you'd like to help with them, instructions for doing B-class reviews are to be found in point 10 of our assessment FAQ. once an article is assessed it will appear in our article alerts and news feed, which provides information on which Poland-related articles are considered for deletion, move, or are undergoing a Good or Featured review. Watchlisting that feed, in addition to watchlisting our project's main page, is a good way to make sure you stay up to date on most Poland-related discussions. you can also see detailed deletion discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland (which is another good place to watchlist!) also, those articles will be included in our cleanup listing, which allows us to see which top-importance articles are in need for attention, and so on newly created Poland-related articles are listed here. They need to be reviewed, often cleaned-up, and its creators may need to be welcomed and invited to our project we are maintaining a Portal:Poland automated Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages lists the most popular Poland-related pages from the previous month(s) This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a [member link] at WikiProject Poland. • Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

wikisource question

I dropped you a question at wikisource. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a particular difference between the two versions that I should consider? Nihil novi (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think those questions relate to being able to verify that the original text has been released under a free license. If you have an email confirming that, please send it WP:ORTS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting of Katyn massacre

This Featured Article is now undergoing a review, and requests have been made to improve the prose. Perhaps you could take a look? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic

Hi there! In the past, you've expressed an interest in local meetups of Wikipedians. Well, here's your chance! On Saturday, June 25, we'll be joining Wikipedians in cities all over the country for the first annual Great American Wiknic -- the picnic that anyone can edit! We'll meet up at a park in SF -- hopefully in the sun -- all other details are still in deliberation!

If this sounds fun, please add your name to the list: Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Wiknic and add that page to your watchlist. (And of course, feel free to edit that page with your ideas, questions, etc.) I look forward to wiknicking with you! -Pete (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Władysław IV Vasa

Soon, I'd like to GA nominate this. If you would care to read it and see if any language issues are present and could be improved, I'd appreciate it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

English as a writer-responsible language

Great thanks for appreciation of my work and for the link to the article about Orwell's essay. I wasn't familiar with it and I did not think earlier about the link between unclear writing and politics. Perhaps partly thanks to Orwell's essay, J. Hinds in 1987 classified English as a writer-responsible language (writers are responsible for making their texts understandable) in contrast to many reader-responsible languages (authors do not need to write understandably because readers are responsible for understanding). I wrote about this classification and some other problems related to translation in my article (pages 101-104).

I was surprised to see that there is very little guidance for translators in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I suppose that before starting the discussion, we should first add a short set of guidelines for translators there and add a link to it in Wikipedia:Translation. Referring to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style would greatly increase our chances of winning this battle. Would you be willing to draft the guidelines on the basis of Orwell's principles (with references to Orwell and Strunk, for example)? Wishing you a nice day :-) Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Though I have written about translation theory and practice, my main experience has been on the practical side. Yours has been on both sides. Would you consider drawing up a text and emailing it to me for possible suggestions that I might have?

Initial email contact can be made by referring to my talk-page left margin and clicking on "Toolbox," then "E-mail this user."

Best wishes, Nihil novi (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed your paper on "Abstracts of research articles: problems of translation." The paper appears to reach beyond translation to composition as well. It would be interesting to compare samples illustrating the various styles of abstract composition — when necessary, in translation. Nihil novi (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

May 3 National Holiday

I am not done expanding this, but I wonder if the name is right. What do you think? I know that in US Polonia celebrates the May 3 Constitution Day, but it is different from the pl:Święto Narodowe Trzeciego Maja, which as you can see has no "constitution" in the name. Feel free to direct your thoughts to the article's talk page :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nihil novi (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done expanding, could you provide a ref for the SF festivities? Also, I wonder if my translation of Witaj, majowa jutrzenko -> Welcome, May Dawn is good? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your modifications to image caption for the Last Supper on Anachronism article

I fully agree with your improvements to the grammar, style, and details of the caption for this image of the Last Supper; but, if you check out the High-Res Image and zoom in and look at what's on the table, I think you'll agree that these are rolls (especially see object cut in half, right-most portion of image, by Judas). My point is, I don't think there are actually any oranges in the picture; and therefore no anachronism, which is what the image (and caption in any form) claims to show. No? --Who R you? (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The round object on the table, in front of the space between the 3rd and 4th persons at the right end, seems to have something attached to it that might be leaves. An orange? A lemon?

Maybe in the painting there were rolls (if such were used then) as well as some sort of citrus fruit?

I'm not sure what to make of it. If there were no oranges (lemons?), then perhaps the painting does not, indeed, illustrate anachronism and should be deleted from the article. Maybe additional sources could clear up the interesting question that you raise. Nihil novi (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good eye -- Glad I wasn't too bold! On further investigation, I'd say there are definitely oranges in the picture... but that answer has raised several other issues. Since I appreciate you're assistance/communication on this so far, and I'm not sure if you're the type that just prefers to do their own thing and this is maybe a pain, I'm putting the rest of my questions on MarB4's talk page since they welcomed me (and were foolish enough to say, if I had any questions...); but, if you've got any thoughts, please chime in on my posting there (Entitled: You did say you didn't mind questions... Re: Last Supper) on his/her site and we'll look for a consensus of 3. Thx :) -- Who R you? (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. Sorry for adding to the wrong end of your list.

Thanks, I'll be happy to look in, if I can find your posting there. Nihil novi (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Last Supper

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:MarB4#You did say you didn't mind questions... Re: Last Supper. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Province" vs. "Voivodeship"

You have previously taken an interest in the question of using "province" on Wikipedia in lieu of "voivodeship." The matter is again under discussion at "Talk:Voivodeships of Poland," in case you would like to participate. Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Nihil. By mere chance, three weeks ago I thought about our short exchange on the issue, and how I never came around to actually do anything. :-) Ev (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As that unfortunate hybrid loanword "voi(e)vod(e)ship" has continued to vex me, I have borne in mind the generosity of spirit that you showed in April 2010. Thank you for again adding your voice to this discussion. Nihil novi (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I should be the one thanking you, as you are the ones duing the bulk of the work here. Best, Ev (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Sorry, forgot to mention it here. — Best, Ev (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be interested

In this little puzzle :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A technicality

I've no opinion, but wanted to run this by you: Talk:Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Requested_move. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Semerkhet

Why the change in spelling from artefact to artifact? How does WP:ENGVAR apply to this change? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My computer objected to "artefact," and it looked a little strange to me too. My Concise Oxford Dictionary lists your spelling first; while my Webster's puts the main entry under "artifact." The etymology (artis + factus) seems to argue for the latter version.

I suppose we live in different Anglospheres. If you prefer to revert the spelling, I'll do my best to remember to leave it alone.

I appreciate the article, which I am finding of research value.

Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR controls this as I've said, it just depends on the article and also how it started. I found someone today changing a spelling about a mummy in the British Museum called 'Ginger', which is what the Brits call red-heads, to an American spelling (forget the word). Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Of interest?

Since your knowledge of Polish and English languague and applications is to be respected, I'd be interested in your thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murzyn. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Voivodeships/

I know you're unhappy about the fact that WP uses voivodeship instead of provinces, but that decision was made long ago and you have failed to change consensus. Adding "notes" to the article is rather POINTy, and not very contructive. This is a deadhoarse argument. Please stop, accept consensus already, and move on to something else. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Czesc, Nihil Novi. Can you please tell what was wrong with my edits in "Translation" article? Your help or advice on my edits would be gladly appreciated. Soshial (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Здравствуӥте!

With all due respect:

Your textual transpositions were not helpful;

Your original texts introduced little new substance, expressed awkwardly;

The idea of turning the article's "Back-translation" section into a separate article does not seem constructive. Back-translation is a concept essential to the theory and practice of translation.

While I can't support your suggested changes, please do not feel discouraged. It took me many years to develop skills that enable me to contribute to Wikipedia, and I am sure others have had similar experiences.

I appreciate your getting in touch. Perhaps we can mentor each other in future?

Большое спасибо!

Nihil novi (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

May I then ask to help me with correcting awkwardness and adding some material that can expand the new sections I have added. I'm not talking about textual transpositions but about the new additions. Why did you deleted them? Thank you for counseling. Soshial (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha!

Perhaps you'll find those two related discussions of interest: Talk:Epiphany_(feeling)#Merger_with_Eureka_effect :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hello Nihil novi, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. (Note: This invitation is open to any interested Wikipedian — If you're reading this, and would like to be interviewed as well, please contact me.) Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Intermarium.

A tag has been placed on Intermarium., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

See also my comment on Talk:Międzymorze. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Maria Skłodowska

Witaj Mi sie wydaje że pisanie "Polish-French", oznaczyłoby że któreś z rodziców było francuzem a tak nie jest. Obydwaj rodzice byli polakami, urodziła sie w polsce gdy była ona okupowana prze rosian. Francuzi robią wszystko aby zmienić jej narodowość, a mnie sie to nie podoba. UWAŻAM ŻE POWINNO BYĆ NAPISANE COŚ TAKIEGO "Was a Polish physicist and chemist, who later received French citizenship.." Zerknij jak jest napisany angielski artykuł o Albercie Einsteinie ps. Oraz jakim prawem artykuł angielski został przeniesiony z Marie Skłodowska-Curie -> Marie Curie . Na grobie jest wyraźnie napisane Marie Skłodowska-Curi. Pozdrawiam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winooo (talk • contribs) 11:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Co do nazwiska: Wielu Wikipedystów twierdzi, że Maria Skłodowska-Curie jest znana w świecie angielskojęzycznym pod nazwiskiem "Curie" i dlatego powinna w tytule artykułu występować pod tym nazwiskiem. Ja się z tym nie zgadzam ale nie wiem, czy uda się przeforsować zmianę. (Nie zgadzam się również z "voi(e)vod(e)ship" na "województwo" ale dotąd nie udało się tego zmieniċ na "province".)

Pozdrawiam. Nihil novi (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen?

Regarding Madame Skłodowska Curie, she may have used both her last names, but I don't think they were hyphenated. I you look at her signature, currently in the infobox, and her Nobel Prize diploma, they both omit the hyphen. Favonian (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Polish Wikipedia, Polish encyclopedias (e.g., Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN and Encyklopedia Polski), Norman Davies' God's Playground, and Adam Zamoyski's The Polish Way all hyphenate "Skłodowska-Curie". Nihil novi (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

National Defense University

You are absolutely wrong. The proper name of this military school is National Defense University, not Academy of National Defence nor National Defense Academy. Look at official website of this school: What name can you see there?

National Defense University --Matrek (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's Akademia Obrony Narodowej that is wrong.

Since when does akademia mean "university"?

This is typical Polish titulature inflation of recent years.

Another example is akademia medyczna, rendered as "medical university".

Nihil novi (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignacy Krasicki

Probably there aren't the same images of Krasicki, so substitution is not necessary. Mathiasrex (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at [19] ? Your Krasicki portrait there is in color. That's the picture I want to put on the "Fables and Parables" page, instead of the similar but black-and-white image. Nihil novi (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's probably missed original portrait by Krafft, [20], take notice on difference between this one [21] Mathiasrex (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that they both have the same label: "File:Ignacy Krasicki.JPG" -- which I think is why I'm unable to change the black-and-white version to the color one. Nihil novi (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sądzę, że problem możnaby łatwo rozwiązać, gdybyś mógł stworzyć wersję swej barwnej fotografii z inną etykietką. Nihil novi (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The first is not simply colour version of image in en wiki but is another portrait. Mathiasrex (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I know. And that (your color portrait) is the one I'd like to use on "Fables and Parables". But I can't because it carries the same label as the black-and-white portrait. Nihil novi (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Tak -- chodzi o zmianę nazwy pliku, żeby można było użyć na "Fables and Parables". Nihil novi (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

dałem do zmiany nazwy na commons musimy zaczekać, chyba prościej byłoby skasować czarno-biały z en wiki i załadować go pod inną nazwą na commons. Mathiasrex (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Można skasować. Inna wersja czarno-biała, stworzona przez Wyciorka (19 II 2006) juź istnieje pod nazwą "File:Ignacy-Krasicki-oil.jpg". Nihil novi (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Tym bardziej, że czarno-białej "File:Ignacy Krasicki.JPG" brak, jak to stwierdzono na pliku, pewnych niezbędnych informacji (które znajdują się na pliku "File:Ignacy-Krasicki-oil.jpg" [22]: "Ignacy Krasicki, obraz olejny, 1767, Per Krafft").

Czy umiałbyś czarno-białe "File:Ignacy Krasicki.JPG" ([23]) zlikwidować? Nihil novi (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Naming and grammar

Whenever I see people talking about naming and grammar, you are my stop :) See Talk:Medal of the 10th Anniversary of People's Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Mononymous person, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Tintin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Horace

Hi Nihil. As one 0 to another, would you please not copy edit Horace for a while, as it is leading to edit conflicts with your equivalent, me. Actually, I'm worth two of you, being the guy with 00 for eyes. Thanks Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ultra, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages OSS and Arthur Schlesinger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've made the necessary corrections. Nihil novi (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of multiple discoveries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relativistic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected the link. Nihil novi (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Nihil novi, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Nihil novi.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The tombstone photos

I can't say I understand why you're using these tombstone photos. In and of themselves they're nice photos but they don't really illustrate the subjects of the relevant articles as well as the alternatives. As infobox pics they also seem a bit... morbid. I think they should be included in the relevant articles somewhere but they don't make for very good infobox or "lede" images.

It's sort of like if I uploaded photos of my figurki krolow and put them in for infobox images. (Btw, you wouldn't happen to own any of these, would you? I need a few to complete the collection).VolunteerMarek 09:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The tomb effigies, except for Jadwiga and Władysław of Varna, are from the period and give the closest representation of the monarch in question. They carry an authenticity that Matejko's and Bacciarelli's pictures of royals do not possess.

As to Sienkiewicz — apart from a few scenes in Quo Vadis (as when Petronius stops Nero's mouth, under pretext of preserving Nero's voice for the benefit of mankind, in order to save a potential victim of the emperor's), Sienkiewicz is essentially a John Wayne of Polish literature: patriotism, optimism and shallowness. Nihil novi (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that the story of Jadwiga's selling her jewels to renew the Kraków Academy has a later parallel with Stanford University? The Stanford Museum has a painting of the jewels Mrs. Stanford sold off to pay for Leland Stanford Junior University. Nihil novi (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sigismund I the Old, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles V (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Poland in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Poland for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you'll take a few minutes and take part in this interview. It is a landmark for our project, and your participation is an important part of our little community! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added a few comments. Nihil novi (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Johann Dzierzon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Szreniawa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon

San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon! Who should come? You should. Really.
	The San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon will be held on Saturday, March 17, 2012 at the the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco! Participate in editing subjects about women's history and beyond! Workshops will also be hosted. New and experienced editors of any gender are welcome! We look forward to seeing you there!

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Translation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Constitution of May 3, 1791 (painting)

Perhaps you'd like to read through my latest GAN and see if anything can be made to sound more English? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Justynian Szczytt

Hello,

I would ask you to check grammar and spelling in article Justynian Szczytt (d. 1677). I want to promote it to GA, but my English is very poor and I'm sure that I couldn't avoid mistakes in this article. Best regards Kmicic (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Great Sejm

I have nominated this article for a GA. If you'd like to give it an English proofreading pass, I'd appreciate it! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Jan Kochanowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ostrów Tumski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've disambiguated the reference. Nihil novi (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. When you recently edited Joseph Conrad, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Congo and Newcastle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Gentry

Nikkimaria has drastically forced on the article Gentry an solitary, unparalleled and uncompromising destruction of an article in the name of summarizing. Under the disguise of summarizing she exchanges material for other material. Yes, reducing was needed and it has been done. The galleries and images in the Gentry article have already been over 50% reduced in the spirit of cooperation. Still the reduction continues. Please help in the discussion. The changes have been major and constructive discussion would bee needed on the Gentry talk page. Thank you. Major Torp (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you look at the prose in Stanisław August Poniatowski

I am done expanding this article. Could you look at the prose? I'd like to GA it in the near future, and I am sure the prose needs some cleaning. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Charaszkiewicz

As I am doing my run of B-class reviews, I notice this article needs one para referenced. It would be a shame if it fell down to C-class due to one para... perhaps you could find the source for it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2!

San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! You are invited!

The San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 will be held on Saturday, June 16, 2012 at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco. Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join us! This event will be specifically geared around encouraging women to learn how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Workshops on copy-editing, article creation, and sourcing will be hosted. Bring a friend! Come one, come all! EdwardsBot (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC) · Unsubscribe

San Francisco Wiknic 2012

	San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park
	You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. —Max Klein {chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite.

Nihil novi, you are invited

I have noticed that you edited the University of Warsaw article and I thought this could be interesting for you. --Comparativist1 (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Biuro Szyfrów - references need improvement

This article, which you've contributed to, needs more references if it is to maintain its GA status. See Talk:Biuro_Szyfrów#Citations_needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Good job adding the needed refs, I think the article is fine now, but for a single cite request I've just added (about the assessment of the 1979 movie; we need to be clear what source gives us the right to call it a good movie).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Question

Hello, Nihil novi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting request (Prussian Homage (painting)/GA1)

Could I interest you in c/e-ing the latest GA of mine? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bolesław Prus needs ref improvement

Slowly going through my reviews of Poland-related articles, and now that you're mostly done with BS, I am afraid Bolesław Prus needs a similar treatment (more references) if it is to maintain it's GA status. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Curie

I listed your recent work on Marie Curie at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries, because the article is so important and the improvements are excellent. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Kind of you. Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Historic recurrence

I've deleted the paradigms section - that's too much to claim fair use, and there was also material directly copied from [24]. It also appears to me that there are examples without sources calling them historic recurrence, but I need to look more closely at that. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:NORN#Historic recurrence. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
		For your constant help with the Poland-related articles and issues, on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, I award you the Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd class. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Nihil novi by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here on 17:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! - Wiki Loves Monuments - San Francisco Events

Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco

Hi! As part of Wiki Loves Monuments, we're organizing two photo events in the San Francisco Bay Area and one in Yosemite National Park. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact User:Almonroth with questions or concerns.

There are three events planned:

• September 15, Saturday - A bike ride along San Francisco's waterfront
• September 22-23rd, Saturday-Sunday - Wiki Takes Yosemite
• September 29, Saturday - A sunset and harvest moon bridges, palace, boats and tower tour

We look forward to seeing you there!

You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Conrad, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kazimierówka and Kalinówka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Celina Szymanowska for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Celina Szymanowska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celina Szymanowska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Conrad, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bangala and Boma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Conrad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Torrens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bruno Winawer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rochester

Multiple discovery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fluxions

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Translation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sentence and Censor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco

October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited!

Come celebrate Ada Lovelace Day at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the Ada Initiative, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer. The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome! You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Knowlton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posthumous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trilby (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon tomorrow (Saturday) in Oakland

Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.

If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! -Pete (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bible translations into Polish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Gmina v. municipality

You wrote at Talk:Gmina and maybe are interested in Talk:Gmina#Gmina_v._municipality. JelgavaLV (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Mitzler = Mizler

I have written a book with 600 apges only about this person (see: www.mizler.de). He is the same person as Lorenz Chr. Mizler. There is no doubt at all!!! Merge ok? Felbick (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly looks like the same person.

Would you be willing to combine the contents of "Lorenz Christoph Mizler" and "Wawrzyniec Mitzler de Kolof", in the interests of German-Polish friendship and pan-European solidarity? Nihil novi (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nihil novi's quote: This is what I found as the justification of the move: "The article's original title, "Poglish," is more euphonious and has 4 times as much support on Google."

I'm afraid this is just your opinion. The missing letter "l" is necessary to demonstrate the morphology and the sense of this hybrid term. As to the Google support, well, the Google output is only as good as its input. If users, and particularly the influential websites like Wikipedia propagage the terms, they would become entrenched, right or wrong. This would only undermine Wikpedia's credibility. halare 92.21.245.7 (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

English name thoughts?

Please see Talk:Crime in Gąsawa. Your input would be welcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I second that.Volunteer Marek 05:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Giedroyc Doctrine

I think you may be interested in this new article of mine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming of lakes

In case you don't follow WT:POLAND daily: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Naming_confusion_in_Category:Lakes_of_Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Pagan reaction in Poland

In appreciation of your helpful input at Talk:Gąsawa massacre, I want to let you know about a similar discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Chopin FA?

Hi, Nihil novi. I am interested in getting the Frederic Chopin article up to FA status. I plan to feature it as a TFA on 17 October 2014, the 165th anniversary of Chopin's death. Would you be kind enough to give me some advice on how to improve it? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I honestly believe that the English-language "Frédéric Chopin" has long been of Featured Article quality. It is likely the best article on the subject in any language on Wikipedia, including "featured articles" in Danish, Spanish, Esperanto, Macedonian, Norwegian and Portuguese — some of which draw heavily on the English version.

Most of the article is well documented, though some current paragraphs lost their original connections to in-line citations when longer paragraphs were split. The citations might, however, be reconstituted by reference to earlier, pre-split editions. This holds for some paragraphs based on Zdzisław Jachimecki's 1937 biography in Polski słownik biograficzny, which remains a reliable source, as I found when I viewed the Fryderyk Chopin Museum in Warsaw.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. By the way, there are a lot of composer articles that are FA-quality. For example, Richard Wagner, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Edward Elgar are all featured articles. I was thinking about getting it up to FA back in September. There were some discussions about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 35#Class for Chopin. As Toccata quarta pointed out to me, "a lack of citations is fatal. There are other problems as well, and I have already posted one critique on the article's talk page. The tone of the section "Publishing" is terribly unencyclopedic, and there are several violations of WP:NPV in the article. Moreover, the article ignores those musicians who have been critical of Chopin (Glenn Gould being one of the best known critics of Chopin's work)." Also, Smerus expressed concerns that "There is, however, a serious drawback with the Chopin article, namely that very many of the citations given are to books in Polish, and some of these are rather ancient. - ( e.g. : Jachimecki, Zdzisław (1937). "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek" (in Polish). Polski słownik biograficzny. 3. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności). I don't think that, until these and similar are replaced by (preferably modern) English citations, the article can justify a B rating". However, I am on the fence that the PSB is a reliable source. Do you have any thoughts or opinions about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the criticisms you cite have merit, and those flaws should be corrected.

Polski słownik biograficzny is a serious publication, often used on English Wikipedia, and Zdzisław Jachimecki was a serious musician and musical authority.

Piotrus was mistaken in downgrading the Chopin article.

Anglophones do not have a monopoly on wisdom. Nihil novi (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That is completely understandable, especially considering the fact that PSB is a reliable source after all and that Anglophones do not have a monopoly of wisdom. I am only trying to help obviously and even if anyone was mistaken, there's always room to improve upon the article obviously. In fact, as for the monopoly of wisdom, Tim riley, a user who is a well-respected Wikipedian and has the same interest in classical music and composers, retired back in August 2012 citing sniping, carping, arrogating a monopoly of wisdom, as well as ultimately killing the joy of working on Wikipedia after an infobox discussion on Talk:Georg Solti when it was a TFA. However, Tim has since returned in November 2012. I am currently working on a few other classical music/composer articles to get them up to FA status in time for their anniversaries of their births or deaths (i.e. Benjamin Britten and Giuseppe Verdi). Having been involved in editing articles that are related to classical music, I am an expert when it comes to editing these articles. Maybe if we could ask one of the members of WikiProject Composers to help work on the Chopin article so we can get it up to FA, would that be possible? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

All competent efforts would be most welcome.

Thank you for reviving interest in Chopin at Wikipedia! Nihil novi (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, Nihil novi. It always takes a collaborative effort to work on getting an article to FA status! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I stand by my downgrading of the article. It is missing citations. That's a quick fail right for GA right there, not to mention a FA. I am currently at work, but I will check if I have the Chopin's PSB entry, and if somebody wants to work towards FA, I will slot it as my next project (currently I am working on Adam Mickiewicz). Either way, please make sure to get GA before FA; step by step process is helpful. Cheers :) PS. For wider response, please ping WT:POLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus

With this edit [25] you rewrote the IP's statement. I don't think it is a common way of editing to falsify other editors contributions that way. Or are you just the same person? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI

I have asked for a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Serafin regarding your latest edits at Nicolaus Copernicus. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copernicus mass sockpuppetry. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you can comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Serafin. Some editors are speculating about why you edited the talk page comments of an IP who is now considered to be a Serafin sock. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maria Wodzińska, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Richard Kogan, M.D.

Hello! Your submission of Richard Kogan, M.D. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South wind, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Buster, Kona and Gibli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Corrected. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013

Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making

Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (Oakland, CA)

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions

• Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
  • Nearest BART: 19th Street
  • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
  • Street parking abounds

EdwardsBot (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Few cite requests at Bolesław Prus

I've added a few during my Polish biography sweep. I also have more deeper concerns weather all content within some paragraphs is really referenced; I am afraid that there are unreferenced claims (sentences) within some paragraphs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Please share any specific concerns. Nihil novi (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping the article up to high quality standard. A quick style comment: there are some short paragraphs that would likely look better merged together. And it is usually recommended to avoid lists, so the list at the end of legacy would benefit from converting to prose (a paragraph or two). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've consolidated the "Legacy" list points. When time permits, I'll take a look at the paragraphing. Nihil novi (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a ping that I am now done expanding Sienkiewicz using PSB, through I may still edit it with some Google Books sources. Nonetheless the major pass for GA has been done; it would of course benefit from prose copyediting over the next few weeks (no hurry; it will probably be months before a GA reviewer will be looking at that). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope to get to Sienkiewicz in due course. Mickiewicz has been unusually slow going, partly because I've been adding explanatory material. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted anything! Nihil novi (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Some articles of interest

You may be interested in rereading Adam Mickiewicz (currently a Good Article candidate, and surely in need of a language copyedit). I am also working on Henryk Sienkiewicz, and hope to be done next week. After that I may take a look at Copernicus, although to be honest it does scare me... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Adam Mickiewicz" copy-edit completed. Nihil novi (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Great. As you've probably noticed, I am also done with Sienkiewicz, and have begun the long process of cleaning up Copernicus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Henryk Sienkiewicz" copy-edit completed. Nihil novi (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if you'd be interested in this, but I finished a non-Polish bio - Erving Goffman, and as usual, it's in need of pre-GA c/e. One of my favorite sociologists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Interesting article. I had been thinking about how people address each other's masks rather than their underlying realities. Nihil novi (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. I am done with referencing and expansion of Florian Znaniecki, which you may be even more familiar with than me, given his ties to the area of philosophy. If you'd like to do some c/e in his article, I'd like to GAN him in the near future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It may be a while before I can do substantial Wiki-work, due to travel plans. Nihil novi (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My newest expanded bio aiming at GAN is Józef Zajączek, if you'd like to look at it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You're invited...

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

• Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
• Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Toruń gingerbread may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Bot! Nihil novi (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

		Copy Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this Copy Editor's Barnstar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles. I award you this Copy Editor's Barnstar for helping out to improve the prose of so many of my articles. Your help is greatly appreciated! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a privilege to help out. If only it were feasible to follow your entire vast Amazon River of valuable contributions to Wikipedia!

Nihil novi (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Adam Mickiewicz 'banishment' to Russia

Hi Nihil! I'm just concerned that, at the moment, the section on Mickiewicz's 'banishment' to Russia gives an impression that such exile was rather light-hearted (to the point that it almost sounds as if it were a fun holiday getting to hang around with the Russian elite). Of course this wasn't the case.

In reading my Ukrainian sources, while he was fortunate not to have been forced into hard labour camps or Siberia, the word used for exiled (not simple banishment) also emphasises the concept of being sent away beyond the borders of your home territory. This is far closer to what the Tsarist policy had in mind.

I'd also like to check on the intro to his European travels. While I rearranged it slightly to make the reading more fluid, "After his five-year exile to Russia, Mickiewicz received permission to go abroad in 1829." does not sit comfortably with me. Again, my readings would have it that it wasn't simply a 5 year exile, although I don't know whether it was indefinite or to be reviewed at the pleasure of the Tsar. Ukrainian sources have it that the influential friends he had assisted him in escaping into self-exile in Western Europe. Hope you can clear this up for me. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, you make some excellent points which should be looked into. The Polish-language edition gives information that addresses some of your concerns. Regrettably, for now, travel plans will make it impossible for me to pursue these questions myself.

I notice that the Ukrainian and Russian articles have nice galleries of Mickiewicz monuments in half a dozen countries.

Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to the "Mickiewicz" article.

I hope we can keep in touch. Nihil novi (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy your travels, Nihil! By all means, please drop by my talk page just to say hello.

It's been my pleasure working on the Mickiewicz page as I've always admired his genius. I'll persevere with the English translation as it is still a little stilted (reading more like student notes in places) than a fluid article. There are also several ambiguous entries I intend to clarify. I'll have to squirrel around the Polish entry and other entries for sources acceptable according to EN Wikipedia policy. I just hope that Piotr has understood that I am, by no means, out to sabotage the article. Mickiewicz deserves a GA entry in EN Wikipedia. I think it tragic that he's become a forgotten player in the international literary stakes as he was, undoubtedly, one of the greats of the romantic era.

I'll look into the galleries and check on copyright for the photos of monuments dedicated to him globally as they speak to how important a figure he is deemed to be.

Looking forward to hearing from you when you have the time! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages

Since you have over 100 edits at Henryk Sienkiewicz, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages

Since you are the leading registered editor in terms of edits at Felix Salten, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Chopin

Thanks for your help in getting this article sorted - there's a fair amount of dead wood to be cleared before it can be properly rebuilt. Do you by the way have a source for Chopin's sister 'smuggling' the ashes to Warsaw (as opposed to just taking them) - I can't find one at present. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've read that Ludwika got Chopin's heart through checkpoints (customs?), concealed beneath her skirts. As I don't recall where I saw this, I propose modifying the current text for now to: "His sister took it in an urn to Warsaw, where it was eventually sealed within a pillar of the Holy Cross Church, beneath an epitaph sculpted by Leonard Marconi..."

Marconi (1835-99) would have been too young in 1849, aged 14, to have at that time sculpted the epitaph, which I understand to have been contemporary with the heart's immuring. Hence I think that took place eventually.

You've done a very creditable job pruning the article of unneeded, conjectural and long-winded matter. I think, though, I would have kept a few items, such as the mention (if only in footnotes) of Chopin's first cousin, American Civil War General Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski and more distant relation, World War II British SOE agent Krystyna Skarbek, aka Christine Granville.

Nihil novi (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you: some of these things might of course be restored when the article proper is in decent shape.--Smerus (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing work on this article. As you've probably realised, I am trying to replace citations from Polish language sources (and some out-of-date/unreliable English sources) with citations from modern English sources. This would be one consideration if (as I eventually hope) the article can be put forward for GA status. Thus if you could use English language citations wherever possible I think that would be a real plus. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a bit more on sources. WP:NOENG says "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, where English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Therefore, unless you have objections, I will remove Polish citations for factual issues not in dispute where a modern English citation is available which verifies the same. Otherwise we get overloaded with notes, the Polish versons of which are in any case not available to the vast majority of English WP readers. Similarly I will replace older English citations of factual items where modern English citations are available. The siurces I would propose to use include include Grove, Samson's biography (1996), Taruskin (2005), Walker's Liszt biography, and other essays by Temperley and Samson. In matters of opinion or interpretation, of course, Polish or older English citations would remain, except in any circumstances where modern English citations to the same effect are available. Is this agreeable to you? Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Conrad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 23:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the link. Thank you, DPL bot! Nihil novi (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

James S. Pula

Perhaps you know of some references we can add to remove the notability tag? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nihil novi (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Polish for "Nicholas" is "Mikolaj", not "Nikolaj"

Hi !

1st of all, sorry for my wrong doing in Frédéric Chopin. I know a tiny, little Russian and for me it was obvious that the former editor had a typo, and he used an "M", instead on an "N".

Thanks for your correction.

All the best,
--Hgfernan (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your efforts. Nihil novi (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1

If you'd have time to read the article again, the FA delegate has asked for another copyediting pass... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Interesting and fairly comprehensive article. Nihil novi (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tadeusz Kościuszko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dvina River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For your continuing copyediting of my articles. When you are ready to move to another article, I've finished the expansion of Stephen Báthory towards GA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko

Hi Nihil, thanks for your edits on the Tadeusz Kościuszko page, however I noticed you have not been leaving any edit summaries, which is expected when you make anything more than a minor edit, and esp when you reduce content and make other deletions. Leaving edit summaries would be a big help to other editors when they inspect your edits. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers 22:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to remember to do that. Nihil novi (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Roman Dmowski

We can't fully understand Piłsudski without a look at his arch-nemesis. I am done with most of my expansion and c/e of the article; if you'd like to take a look at it, as usual, I'd greatly appreciate it. I plan to GAN it in the near future. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no keeping up with your prodigious pace of work. I'll try to look in as time permits. Please keep me posted. Nihil novi (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Notable books by Conrad

Hi, I've restored the formatting changes I made to the Conrad list, so all the titles are in italics rather than half italics and half double quotes. It's hard to believe anyone really wanted that.

As for the The End of the Tether and The Duel, it is a matter of subjective opinion whether they are "notable" as unlike the other titles in the list, which are bluelinked, these were not. Therefore as far as Wikipedia is concerned, these are unproven claims. The notable works field in an author's infobox is generally limited to the one or two most striking things they have done as a quick summary. I've left the two unlinked items there but their placement in the infobox is not currently justified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your remarks.

It is, however, customary to italicize the titles of novels, but to place in quotation marks the titles of short stories such as Joseph Conrad's "The Lagoon", "An Outpost of Progress", "Youth", "Amy Foster", "The Duel" and "The Secret Sharer". Nihil novi (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is mainly that there are far too many items in the list. One might, for instance, just put Lord Jim there on its own, which would look a lot better. Just a suggestion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Charles Dickens' infobox lists 8 notable works. Conrad probably merits a comparable number.

Perhaps The Nigger of the 'Narcissus', "Youth", Heart of Darkness, Lord Jim, Nostromo, The Secret Agent, "The Secret Sharer", and Victory?

Nihil novi (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 find a resolution. The thread is "Marie Curie". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For your consideration

I very much appreciate your work with c/e-ing my articles. Please, however, consider this story about a reference: link. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Józef Sylwester Sosnowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turtledove (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the link. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Last will and testament of Tadeusz Kościuszko

Since you c/e much of the article about TK, you may be interested in this new subarticle. I am attempting to split all controversial/undue info about the will from TK article into this new one - it is a major topic at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1. Comments appreciated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nihil novi (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

On the shorter side

My newest GAN, for you c/e consideration: Jan Henryk Dąbrowski. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 find a resolution. The thread is "Frédéric Chopin". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 14:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

I noticed that when you changed the sentence about Chopin's nationality being disputed to saying that he was Polish (and removed sources), you entered the edit summary 'copy edit'. A copy edit is one that changes mistakes, not one that changes content in a dispute. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Kraków Cloth Hall

hello there, you're welcome. I am not sure what format for the Barbican you would wish? Gryffindor (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Conrad

Hi, I noticed that you have an objection to listing Joseph Conrad and his father Apollo as "Ukrainians of Polish descent". Indeed they are both ethnically Polish, but so is everybody else listed in that category. What is the difference between Igor Sikorsky and Joseph Conrad for example? 1982vdven (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky and his father Ivan Sikorsky may have been partly of "noble Polish (szlachta)... background", but their national identity was Russian.

Joseph Conrad and his father Apollo Korzeniowski were not merely "of Polish descent"—their national identity was Polish.

According to the Wikipedia "Igor Sikorsky" article, "His father, Ivan Alexeevich Sikorsky, had a Russian and noble Polish (Polish: szlachta) family background.... Ivan was the son and grandson of Russian Orthodox priests and held monarchist and Russian nationalist views."

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we have no category for "Polish people who just happen to be living in Ukraine". We have "Polish expatriates in Ukraine", but 'expatriate' to me implies an immigrant or migrant to a region, not somebody whose family has lived in that region for many years. "Ukrainians of Polish descent" is as good as we got. It's a slightly flawed category, but it connects with the article Poles in Ukraine. 1982vdven (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Would a category like "Poles in Ukraine" be more unequivocal?

That way, the two Korzeniowskis would be listed accurately as Poles (who lived in Ukraine), not as Ukrainians. Nihil novi (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Frédéric Chopin does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 07:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GA Thanks

This user has contributed to Erving Goffman good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Erving Goffman, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It's good to hear of the article's promotion. Nihil novi (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!

File:Csaky madonna.jpg

Hi Nihil novi! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco. Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here! SarahStierch (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Piotr Skarga

My newest Polish biographical GAN - if you'd like to give it a read through? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Jan Zamoyski

My newest article. If you'd care to copyedit it, I'd be grateful, as always. I hope you'll find it interesting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland Newsletter • January 2014 • Issue II

WikiProject Poland Newsletter • January 2014 • Issue II For our freedom and yours Welcome to the second issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; we get close to a hundred discussion threads each year and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. Last year we were featured in the Signpost, and our interviewer was amazed at our activity. In the end, however, even as active as we are, we are just a tiny group - you can easily become one of our core members! In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop: we have an active assessment department. As of now, our project has tagged almost 83,000 pages as Poland-related - that's an improvement of over 3,000 new pages since the last newsletter. Out of which 30 still need a quality assessment, and 2,000, importance assessment. We have done a lot to clear the backlog here (3 years ago those numbers were 1,500 and 20,000, respectively). Can you help assess a few pages? assessing articles is as easy as filling in the class= and importance= parameters on the talk page in the {{WPPOLAND|class=|importance=}} template. See here for a how-to guide. once an article has an assessment template, it will appear in our article alerts and news feed, which provides information on which Poland-related articles are considered for deletion, move, or are undergoing a Good or Featured review. Watchlisting that feed, in addition to watchlisting our project's main page, is a good way to make sure you stay up to date on most Poland-related discussions. you can also see detailed deletion discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland (which is a good place to watchlist if you just want to stay up to date on possible deletions of Poland-related content) we have also begun B-class quality reviews on our talk page, and if our activity increases, hopefully we will be able to institute our own A-class quality reviews. As of now, we have about 500 C-class articles in need of a B-class review. If you'd like to help with them, instructions for doing B-class reviews are to be found in point 10 of our assessment FAQ. In addition to this automated list, you are also encouraged to help review articles from our B-class reviews requested list found here. also, those articles will be included in our cleanup listing, which allows us to see which top-importance articles are in need for attention, and so on. We have tens of thousands articles in need of cleanup there, so if you ever need something to do, just look at this gigantic list. (I am currently reviewing the articles tagged with notability, either proving them notable or nominating for deletion; there are still several dozens left if you want to help!). did you know that newly created Poland-related articles are listed here. They need to be reviewed, often cleaned-up, occasionally nominated for deletion, and their creators may need to be welcomed and invited to our project if they show promise as new authors of Poland-related content. we are maintaining a Portal:Poland automated Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages lists the most popular Poland-related pages from the previous month(s) Breaking news: we are looking for a Wikipedian in Residence for the New York City area. See Wikipedia:GLAM/Józef Piłsudski Institute of America for details. This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? It took me three years to finish this issue. Feel free to help out getting the next one before 2017 by being more active in WikiProject management :) You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a member at WikiProject Poland. Please remove yourself from the mailing list to prevent receiving future mailings. Newsletter prepared by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here and sent by Technical 13 (talk) using the Mass message system.

Nicolaus Copernicus

Sorry, my dear, you're sure. Claudio Pistilli (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!

The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend. Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko nominated for FA

This is a general notice to previous reviewers: The Tadeusz Kościuszko article has again been nominated for FA. Opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive2. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Historic or Historical?

I created Historical Monument (Poland) (list). But perhaps Historic would be better? What sounds better to you? It would probably be best if you replied on the article's talk; I've no objections if you move the associated list and c/e the linking articles (there aren't many yet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So, culture park, not cultural park? If so, please be bold and move it too. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.

"Culture park" sounds better, but it's still a little peculiar. Maybe when the article becomes fleshed out, the meaning will become more manifest. Nihil novi (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Doll (novel) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | media_type = [[Newspaper]], [[Hardcover|hardback]], [[paperback]])

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Logology may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Contributions to the Science of Science'', Boston, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 82–95).</ref> Here "logology" is [[back-formation|back-formed]] from "-logy" (as in "geo''logy''", "
• Study], Warsaw, [[Polish Academy of Sciences]], 2012, [English-language] summary, pp. 741–43).</ref> The word "logology", used in this sense, provides convenient grammatical variants not

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Of interest

You may find this initiative of interest: Wikipedia:GLAM/Józef Piłsudski Institute of America. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Polish Review

By any chance, do you have any good contacts with the editors/publishers of this? I wonder if we could reach out to them to convince them to use a free license. I find it annoying that neither of the two academic institutions I've accounts at has access to their archives through JSTOR :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive4

Since you were one of the major editors of this article, you may want to comment on the nomination. Please note that the last year's nomination failed primarily because not enough people voiced their opinion (whether for or against, it was decided that not enough people commented in the first place). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Polish Peasant in Europe and America

Perhaps you'd like to copyedit my newest DYK? I wonder if it's could be a GA candidate. What do you think? (I am expanding Znaniecki's bio with the GA in mind, too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Armia Krajowa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reaction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the ambiguity. Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Jan Matejko

A new article of mine, mostly finished expanding and aiming for a GA soon. As usual, some prose copyediting wouldn't go amiss :) Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Tadeusz Kościuszko

This is a note to let the main editors of Tadeusz Kościuszko know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 17, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 17, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Tadeusz Kościuszko (1746–1817) was a military leader who became a national hero in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and the United States. He graduated from the Corps of Cadets in Warsaw, Poland, before studying in France. In 1776, he moved to North America, where he took part in the American Revolutionary War as a colonel in the Continental Army. An accomplished military architect, he designed and oversaw the construction of state-of-the-art fortifications, including those at West Point, New York. He returned to Poland, and was commissioned a major general in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Army in 1789. Two years after the Polish–Russian War of 1792 had resulted in the Second Partition of Poland, he led an uprising against Russia in March 1794. Russian forces captured him at the Battle of Maciejowice, and the defeat of the uprising led to the Third Partition in 1795, which ended Poland's independent existence for 123 years. He was pardoned by Tsar Paul I in 1796 and emigrated to the United States. A close friend of Thomas Jefferson, Kościuszko wrote a will in 1798 dedicating his American assets to the education and freedom of U.S. slaves. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Piotr Skarga

Per Piotrus' request, I've again copy-edited "Piotr Skarga". Thankfully, not an extremely long article. Nihil novi (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three Crosses Square, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triple Crown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but the link to the "Triple Crown" disambiguation page was intentional. Nihil novi (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Skarbek/Mulley

Jako wnuk emigrantów z Łomży, mogę was zapewnić, szanuję Skarbek i Mulley ogromnie. Nie wiem, co o moich zmian jest tak obraźliwe, ale trzeba przedstawić wyjaśnienie, jeśli uważasz, że masz zamiar usunąć wszystko moje edycji. Dziekuje. Quis separabit? 17:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. While I don't have time to review closely, Rms125a's edits are not simple vandalism, so their reverting requires an explanation, per WP:BRD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you should tell this to this new editor. If we don't tell new editors what they do wrong, how are they to learn? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Gender imbalance

I can't see why you would insist on keeping the 90% male domination (27/30) in the gallery of notable Poles. I've suggested 8 women (8/30) of great significance in their field, having made sure the change won't affect the balance of various historical periods and professions that the listed names represent. I'm haven't suggested a (50%) gender parity, considering the fact that women may have not had the same opportunity of "becoming notable" as men. I have the impression that the previous editors subconsciously excluded women (non of male Nobel Prize winners were omitted, and now you're protesting against including Szymborska). Poortutor (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving this conversation to "Talk:Poles". Nihil novi (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wieliczka Salt Mine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of Newspaper Columns), selected, edited, and with foreword and notes, by [[Zygmunt Szweykowski]]), Warsaw, [[Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy]], 1973, pp. 34–49.</ref>
• of Newspaper Columns), selected, edited, and with foreword and notes, by [[Zygmunt Szweykowski]]), Warsaw, [[Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy]], 1973, pp. 34–49.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. Thank you, BracketBot!

Nihil novi (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

New GAN for your consideration

I am finally done with the biography of one of Polish sociological (and psychological) giants: Florian Znaniecki. I hope you'll enjoy reading it! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maria Ossowska, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lwów–Warsaw School. 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) 08:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, DPL bot, for bringing this to my attention. I have corrected the link to "Lwów–Warsaw school". Nihil novi (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Translation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toledo. 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) 09:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Correction made. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frédéric Chopin/archive1

You may want to join that discussion, particularly if you think any topics from Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_12 still remain to be addressed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco

You are invited! → Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco → Saturday, October 11, 2014, from 1-5 PM

The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meet, create and improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. Please bring your laptop. The venue: Wikimedia Foundation offices (149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105) – Google Maps view You must RSVP here — see you there! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

New GA candidate

I finished expansion on Janusz Zajdel; a rather short article compared to some others (but I was working only with some online sources this time). I still hope you find it of interest, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Janusz Zajdel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfa. 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) 09:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Remedied. Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Nihil novi, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Marian Rejewski FAR

I have nominated Marian Rejewski for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki-kitten is here to say "Thank you for your continued efforts to make this project better". Like a kitten, Wikipedia may occasionally scratch and bite, or barf, but it is still worth it! Cheers,

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious

peep in Polish personalities
Thank you for sensible contributions and page moves of articles related to Poland, for the insight "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.", for practising it: "Conrad was neither "liberal" nor "conservative", but a nonpartisan observer of man in an indifferent universe." and "Arguably, an infobox is the absence of a curtain: it gives the passer-by a peep into the house." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You read my mind with the last comment, and said it much more concisely than anything I might have worded if I was permitted to, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Heartfelt thanks for your gracious note!

I suppose that another way to comment about the "curtains" argument would be to say: "Curtains conceal, infoboxes reveal."

Orwell does indeed offer a number of good recommendations for writing, which I try to keep in mind when I write and edit.

As one contributes to Wikipedia, one hopes that someone, somewhere will understand what one has written and will perhaps find it useful.

It was gratifying to hear from you.

I'll look for your work.

Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you know ... that "Geh aus, mein Herz, und suche Freud", written by Paul Gerhardt after the Thirty Years War, was translated as "Go Forth, My Heart, and Seek Delight"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading the article. The poem's theme seems quite apropos. Nihil novi (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The poem is useful every day ;) - Thanks for improvements! Did you check out our pro-revealing cabal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What is a "summer hymn"? Nihil novi (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

SF edit-a-thons on March 7 and 8

ArtAndFeminism (3/7) and International Women's Day (3/8)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, In celebration of WikiWomen's History Month, the SF Bay Area Wikipedia community has two events in early March -- please consider attending! First, we have an ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon, which will take place at the Kadist Art Foundation from 12 noon to 6pm on Saturday, March 7. We'll be one of many sites worldwide participating in this edit-a-thon on March 7th. So join us as we help improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists and their works! Second, we will be celebrating International Women's Day with the International Women's Day edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 8 from 1pm to 5pm at the Wikimedia Foundation. Our editing focus will be on women, of course! I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about SF meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Amy Elizabeth Thorpe

I have removed the paragraph you added. Although having these sources is obviously good, I am not convinced that the statement they are connected to is anything more than a overly broad generalization, and perhaps an editorialization on your part. I suggest that if these sources debunk specific stories, they be brought up in connection to those stories in the article, not as general sources in the lede. Also, bear in mind that court cases have two sides, and one side's "debunking" does not necessarily make it true. BMK (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No need to "bring [the sources] up in connection to th[e] stories in the article." The sources already are linked to the respective stories. In adding a second paragraph to the "Amy Elizabeth Thorpe" lead, I added NO NEW SOURCES. Nihil novi (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not revert me again. Your BOLD edit has been REVERTED and now we DISCUSS, per WP:BRD, but the article stays in the status quo ante. I've told you what I think, that your statement is overgeneralizing and a POV. Go read WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTHESIS again instead of edit warring. If none of those sources says "Most of the published stories of "Cynthia's" (Amy Elizabeth Thorpe's) exploits of seduction-and-espionage have been impeached by historians, by relatives of her deceased alleged targets of seduction and espionage, and by courts of law" then you can't say it, and it can't be in the article. BMK (talk) 04:28 March 2015 (UTC)

If you honestly believe in the stories of "Cynthia's" espionage exploits, please cite, in "Amy Elizabeth Thorpe", full texts from published sources, rather than mere vague mentions of the exploits. Nihil novi (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't recopy this whole discussion on my talk page, please leave it in one place.

You've been here for 8 years, you've got 35K edits, you should know how things work around here. What's in the article is sourced. If you don't like the sourcing, find better ones, but you CANNOT make a broad generalization from your own interpretation and analysis of what multiple sources say, it's forbiddeb by WP:SYNTHESIS. Any positive statement such as you tried to add must be accompanied by a citation from a reliable source that specifically supports that statement. If you provide three sources for a statement, all three must specifically support the statement. You cannot (and the fact that you apparently don't know this after being here for so long is disturbing), give three sources that say different things and use them to support a generalization that you made up. That's your own analysis or interpretation, and it's just plain not allowed, verboten, against the rules. If you keep trying to do that, I will continue to remove it and leave the article in the status quo ante as prescribed by WP:BRD. BMK (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

For the information of readers who would like to understand what this is all about, this is the disputed second paragraph that I had added:

Most of the published stories of "Cynthia's" (Amy Elizabeth Thorpe's) exploits of seduction-and-espionage have been impeached by historians, by relatives of her deceased alleged targets of seduction and espionage, and by courts of law

Notes

Nihil novi (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski progress

How are you feeling about Marian Rejewski? I'm wondering if we will get to a point where a non-specialist (like me) can take over and just do some copyediting and cleanup. Do you feel like there are remaining sourcing and comprehensiveness issues? --Laser brain (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do. As potentially unclear or awkward passages have been pointed out, I have tried to rectify them. You may well be able to identify more of them. Thanks for your generous offer. Nihil novi (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The blind man and the lame

I have undone most of your edits since you appear to be trying to force your own POV on terminology. The story appears almost invariably in Western language sources described as a fable. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the world, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery. 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) 09:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Polish people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanisław Zaremba. 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) 08:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Protecting articles

Requests can be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for protection. If the page is too difficult to navigate, you can just copy what you wrote on my talk to WP:AN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted image

Can you account for this deletion please. The words 'Deleted a noncontributory illustration' means nothing to me, as it's a very valuable contribution imho: the earliest image of a translation, as verified by the National Library of Wales. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Llywelyn, in the "Translation" article there already is a 15th-century image of an earlier translator, seen in the act of translation: Saint Jerome, patron saint of translators. Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --mfb (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Nihil novi and User:Libesruinssineced reported by User:Mfb (Result: Libesruinssineced blocked ). A lengthy revert war can result in sanctions for both parties, even though in this case you appear to be right. Curiously, the WP:EW policy doesn't make an exception for being right. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

List of multiple discoveries (to EdJohnston)

On 8 August 2015 you were so good as to notify me that User:Libesruinssineced had been blocked for 24 hours due to edit-warring conducted by him to restore his ill-conceived edits to the "List of multiple discoveries" which showed him to "seem not to understand the concept of a 'multiple discovery', one that is made by more than one person independently."

Two months later, on 6 October 2015 (please see here [26]), Libesruinssineced resumed his misguided edits. A few examples: He added a section heading, "15th century", placing in it Galileo Galilei and Simon Stevin, both born in the 16th century. In the "17th century" section he placed "link between arteries and veins—Marcello Malpighi"—with no other, independent discoverer mentioned (as required by the article's definition). In the "18th century" section he entered "Methane (1778)—Alessandro Volta"—again, with no other discoverer mentioned.

Under "19th century", he placed "Avogadro's law—molecular theory of Amedeo Avogadro"—once more, with no other, independent discoverer. In the same "19th century" section, he changed "In 1876 Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell filed a patent on discovery of the telephone" to "In 1871, Antonio Meucci and Alexander Graham Bell filed a patent on discovery of the telephone."

Under "20th century", he placed "Nerve growth factor (1950)... discovered by Rita Levi-Montalcini and Stanley Cohen"—an ineligible entry, since they made this discovery together, not independently of each other. In the same "20th century" section, he entered "Technetium of Emilio G. Segrè and Carlo Perriero [sic], an essential material used for the nuclear weapon"—ineligible on two scores: technetium is not used in "the nuclear weapon", and the mineralogist Carlo Perrier (not "Perriero"), according to Wikipedia, "discovered the element technetium along with his colleague, Emilio Segrè..."

Libesruinssineced is single-handedly making a hash of the "List of multiple discoveries". How can the article be protected from him?

Could you please advise me which would be the appropriate Wikipedia administrative forum in which to raise this matter?

Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Warned Libesruinssineced. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much. This should avert further confusion and misinformation for readers of the "List of multiple discoveries". Nihil novi (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring and unsourced changes at List of multiple discoveries [to Libesruinssineced from EdJohnston]

Libesruinssineced, this is an admin warning. You were previously blocked on 7 August 2015 by User:Airplaneman for edit warring. Please use Talk:List of multiple discoveries to get consensus for any further changes. If you continue to revert on this article you may be blocked for a longer time. Your concept of a multiple discovery does not seem to be shared by anyone else and all of your changes are unsourced. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Logology (science of science), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media. 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) 10:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've disambiguated "media". Nihil novi (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

CORRESPONDENCE, by various hands, about Libesruinssineced's edits at "List of multiple discoveries"

Material copied by Nihil novi from User talk:Libesruinssineced and User talk:EdJohnston. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
August 2015 Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at List of multiple discoveries. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page. If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 09:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC) I took at the talk page, but Nihi doesn't care about it. He reverts me edit without making any comment.--Libesruinssineced (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Edit war You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of multiple discoveries. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Airplaneman ✈ 05:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Brought to my attention through here. If @Nihil novi: reverts again, they also risk a block. Wasting server space on useless article revisions when there is clearly a disagreement shows the failure of elementary dispute resolution capabilities. Airplaneman ✈ 05:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Also see here. Airplaneman ✈ 05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Hi admin. I clearly explained the situation in order to avoid edit warring. But he was continuing to offend me. --Libesruinssineced (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --mfb (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC) List of multiple discoveries Libesruinssineced, you have previously been warned by administration not to introduce inappropriate material into "List of multiple discoveries". You are now doing so again. Please stop, so that we do not need to waste time resorting to administrative sanctions against you. Cheers. Nihil novi (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Edit warring and unsourced changes at List of multiple discoveries Libesruinssineced, this is an admin warning. You were previously blocked on 7 August 2015 by User:Airplaneman for edit warring. Please use Talk:List of multiple discoveries to get consensus for any further changes. If you continue to revert on this article you may be blocked for a longer time. Your concept of a multiple discovery does not seem to be shared by anyone else and all of your changes are unsourced. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC) You've made a large number of further changes at List of multiple discoveries on 29 October. You added no sources to show these are considered by scholars to be multiple discoveries. On the talk page, there is no sign that anyone else supports these changes. If you don't undo these changes (until consensus is found) I am planning to block your account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Libesruinssineced is back at "List of multiple discoveries" Libesruinssineced (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Libesruinssineced, ignoring your warnings, is once more back at "List of multiple discoveries" (please see [27] here). Is there any way to definitively stop his wrongheaded tampering with the article? Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Still waiting for L. to respond to my latest warning before deciding what to do. He's made no edits since 29 October. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC) He appears to have made further edits today, 3 November 2015, as "78.149.192.253" (please see [28] here). He has not reverted his objectionable edits of 29 October 2015. Nihil novi (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Long term edit warring You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Long term warring at List of multiple discoveries, per the above notices. The block might be lifted if you will promise not to edit this article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Copying talk threads

Hello Nihil novi. Wholesale copying from user talk is a bit irregular. User talk:Libesruinssineced has been critical of this. I suggest that you blank this portion of your page, or archive it. Rather than copying, you could make a list of diffs, if you still want to make reference to it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)