User talk:Kotniski/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People's names that change

Hi Kloniski,

The real reason that I am asking about people'sd name is that I have been working on the artilce Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton with some peripheral work on the page Kate Middleton. I am trying to establish the rules before they get married, but am also trying to avoid metioning them in the discussion.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Quick philosophical question

When there is a peerage related move request (the usual), do you think it better to vote by application of the relevant policies and guidelines, or better to vote for the outcome you hope to get, possibly contrary to policies and guidelines, in hopes of establishing precedent for changing policies and guidelines?

I ask for three reasons.

First, in this edit I voted according to my best understanding of the current equilibrium, rather than what I think we really ought to do. That is to say, I think that in this case, WP:NCPEER is wrong, but I voted in line with it anyway.

Second, there are many examples of you doing something different. This one is representative. You oppose the move on the grounds that he is not yet "well known under his peerage name". Of course, that isn't what the consensus at WP:NCPEER says, so it seems to me that you aren't merely evaluating what current policy says and then applying it - you are trying to make policy on the ground.

Third, I am preparing to make what I think will be an uncontroversial proposal to move an article from a title that clearly violates NCPEER. But before I do, I was hoping to get your support for the idea that in our specific votes, we ought to view our task as evaluating the specific case against the guideline, rather than trying to make facts on the ground. I think that'd be a good faith gesture in the hopes of moving forward over time with a broader discussion that attempts to adjust the NCPEER guideline itself in an open way, rather than as the result of a thousand little battles.

So, what you think? :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well... certainly the avoidance of a thousand little battles (like seem to have been taking place recently) would be a good thing, although there is also the view that we get a better idea of the current general consensus in the community through these particular-case discussions than through any kind of meta-discussion about the guideline itself (though I'm not sure that worked in this case, since the discussions I saw were mostly dominated by the same small set of editors). However I reject the idea that the precise wording of any WP:XYZ carries any kind of authority if it seems to be at odds with what the community really thinks - like I believe you said yourself some time ago in another context, we don't have written laws - our policies and guidelines are the result of people observing what goes on and doing their imperfect best to make a generalized description of it (or in less ideal situations, edit-warring to make the guidelines describe the reality that they would like to see). In the case of NCPEER, I don't think the wording we have really reflects what people conclude about particular cases when asked, so I see nothing wrong with "voting" out of line with that wording, and I don't accept "clearly violates NCPEER" as a decisive argument. I think the best thing to do would be to have a carefully prepared community-wide RfC on how to treat article titles on peers (I would restrict it to life peers, since they seem to be the problematic ones), and thereby find out which general principles really do enjoy consensus support at this time.--Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. I'll switch to your mode, then, and start arguing for what I think should be the case rather than merely evaluating against existing guidelines. I think that what will be useful here will be two things. First, that we work together in bits and pieces here and there to try to find compromises that all sides can support. Second, that we work on this with a view towards pulling together information that we can then whip into a NPOV presentation of the issue to the community. I suspect that either side could unfairly get a jump on things by presenting a persuasive RfC to a broader community vote, as in my view both sides have good points to make. Better if we get a compromise that both peerage buffs can live with, and the broader community can live with, so that it actually sticks instead of being this ongoing grind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Unanswered question

You have an unanswered question at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Proposal_by_Sandstein ... allegations against current/former members of ArbCom ought to be taken seriously, but only if they have some basis. Please elaborate. ++Lar: t/c 11:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Romanian diacritics

Sorry for the late reply to your question, but now that I'm conversing with another user on the same topic, please join in. In short, there is no current plan to correct Romanian diacritics, but there should be. I also know nothing about bots, but someone who does will hopefully set one up. - Biruitorul Talk 02:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kotniski. You have new messages at Railwayfan2005's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: verifiability

with respect to this - [1] - there was nothing personal intended, except in the sense that everyone has a hard time seeing past what they personally think is right to more general principles. You do it better than most, but no one (short of semi-deified religious figures) does it well. --Ludwigs2 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood; thanks for the clarification :-) --Kotniski (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes at wp:ver / wp:nor

Those pages need some work and suffer from some issues which resist that. And the cycle has been that one or two people at a time try to get that done and get shut down and go away. So folks like you making that effort is good, please stick around there. But IMHO you have to proceed more carefully than you have been doing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. I've been making tiny tweaks; it's ridiculous that people there consider this level of changes somehow too much. On any other page (even most policy pages) it would be considered entirely normal. By telling me to be more "careful" (which could only mean not making any changes at all), you're basically just saying we should give in to those intransigent editors who are the "issues which resist that". It's THEM you should be chiding, not me. If pages need work, then the Wikipedia way is for people to come along and do that work - other people should only reverse changes to the extent that they can see actual problems with them.--Kotniski (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The main things I meant were "thanks for the important effort which you are making", "it was painful for me to revert you" and "don't give up and leave". Sorry if I wasn't clearer. I'll drop the "careful" discussion in order not to detract from those main points. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks, sorry to have focused unnecessarily on the negative... --Kotniski (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

AE and EW

I don't know how closely you are following the AE case you posted in, but I also incidentally saw you posted in the past at WP:EW. I have recently posted a question at EW talk related to the AE incident - you may want to review new discussion at AE, and see my EW question. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Kotniski, thank you for your time and efforts working on this [2]. Unfortunately I'm unable to participate anymore but I know that you guys will work something out and the naming disputes will be just a bad memory. All the best and good luck.--Jacurek (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Help:Interlanguage links

I think that was a very good edit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenating ship class names

Re: the October discussion you participated in on hyphenating ship names, User:SW is willing to make a mass move with a bot if there is a consensus here. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Magical Magyars → Golden Team

There is another RFM up above the one you closed for moving back the article to its original title. Please check it out. It did gain support, please check the votes.
Note: some (also) support "Hungarian Golden Team", but in this case Golden Team (Hungary) would probably be better as the team is referred to simply as "Golden Team" in English. Squash Racket (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but it seems clear enough that the move proposal I closed was rejected. Someone might start another proposal for Golden Team (or some variant thereof). However I'm not an admin - just helping out with the backlog by closing some old discussions where the result seems overwhelmingly clear - so if you're objecting to my closure, you can revert it or ask an admin to review it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

User:Raul654/Raul's_laws#Laws_by_others

Posted another of your remarks. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Głos z polskiej Wikipedii.

Witaj! Ponieważ deklarujesz doskonałą znajomość języka polskiego, piszę po polsku. Jestem wikipedystą z polskiej Wikipedii pl:Wikipedysta:Belfer00. Tutaj nie mam konta, choć często z tej wersji korzystam. To miło, że będąc Brytyjczykiem, udostępniasz angielskojęzycznym czytelnikom wiedzę o Polsce, dzięki. Jednak mam uwagę krytyczną do pewnej Twojej edycji. Ponieważ strona jest zabezpieczona, nie mając konta, nie mogę tego edytować, a zresztą lepiej zawsze przedyskutować to z autorem edycji. Otóż piszesz: "primary topic for "Danzig" is the former German city of that name, but that city's article is titled Gdańsk". Gdańsk był zawsze miastem wielonarodowościowym, mieszkali tam Niemcy, Polacy i inne narodowości. Przez kilkaset lat był w obrębie Państwa Polskiego (Rzeczypospolitej), zanim został włączony pod koniec wieku XVIII do Niemiec (Prus). Rozumiem, że dodałeś "former", ale jednak może lepiej byłoby: "former German name of that city", czy coś w tym rodzaju. Pozdrawiam serdecznie. Belfer00 85.193.197.159 (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring clarification - a month later (let's finish what we've started)

We had a useful discussion at WP:ER, but it seems it died out just as we were about to reach a consensus on implementation. Please see my restart here, it would be a shame to let good ideas go to waste when we are so close to actually making something good out of all that talking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:11, 19 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:

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) 21:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Combined policy

So, on a lark I put together the three core policies and cut out any overlap. It's interesting to see it all in one place and makes a lot more sense, although it's still much lengthier than the original. Since NPOV is included as well, it's more complex than your initial V/OR suggestion, but the V/OR section could be easily split off. Take a look if you like, User_talk:Ocaasi/POL. Ocaasi c 05:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Pro life move discussion

The place to make your comments is here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The only solution

Re "I've given up any hope of improving the clarity of these pages, given the apparent religious commitment of a blocking minority of regulars to ensuring that no-one will ever succeed in doing so, but... well, but. What's the use."

It's really just one person, SlimVirgin. The others are followers. The only solution is for the person that uses the account SlimVirgin to be banned from participating in policy pages. 75.47.156.78 (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Consensus is...

Thanks for the edit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Romanian diacritics

Since we talked about this (ş/ș, ţ/ț), let me give you a quick update on the situation: it's slowly descending into chaos, due to novice users who decide to correct a page or two, but of course don't bother to think of the thousands of pages they leave uncorrected. Thus, we currently have, for instance:

and so on. Now, I suppose there's no particular reason you should be drawn into this, but the idea is that a bot moving all occurrences of Ţ and ţ to Ț and ț, and one moving all Romanian (but not Turkish and related languages) occurrences of Ş and ş to Ș and ș is looking increasingly urgent. Or, if browser compatibility concerns remain a focus, then a move back to Ş, ş Ţ and ţ of "renegade" pages. (Let me also add that de.wiki, eo.wiki and hu.wiki have carried out wholesale moves so far, aside from ro.wiki.) - Biruitorul Talk 17:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this needs sorting out, and probably all of them should move to the correct standard Romanian characters. I can probably do this with a bot, if needed.--Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be great. I can't help on the technical side, except to note that this is apparently what they used at ro.wiki, and this is what they used to block the change on Turkish pages. (Of course, on en.wiki we have far more pages on Turkish subjects than does ro.wiki, so I'm not sure how best to handle that issue.)

Anyway, if you do decide to go ahead, let me know how it's going. - Biruitorul Talk 23:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm currently working on something for Polish Wikipedia, but that should be finished in a week or two; after that I'll get onto this. If you like you could make a proposal in the appropriate places, so that when I come to make a bot request, we'll be able to show that there's consensus to do this.--Kotniski (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011


Libyan Civil War

Hey, there was a disambiguation page created for "libyan civil war" located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war. Having read your comments on the validity of the pre-2011 'libyan' conflicts I figured you might be interested in weighing in on whether having a disambiguation page is worthwhile or not. The discussion is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Libyan_Civil_War. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes

Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Lithuanian/Polish naming controversy - it's not over

You might want to take a look at User:Vycius 2 [3]. Fresh brand new account, created right after Lokyz and Dr.Dan got topic banned, doing the exact same thing, and judging by his talk page, here to do battle over naming.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Romanian diacritics

Good question. I know there have been a few discussions on this and can't recall objections being raised. The last big discussion was here, plus there was this. Should we check in with WP:VPR or does that seem sufficient? - Biruitorul Talk 17:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

George Formby "Sr." disambiguation

Following your comments on the George Formby talkpage, anything you'd like to add here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Reopening a discussion

I want to reopen the discussion Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Example_convention regarding bibliographic references because I think Unicode changes the game somewhat. Since you have participated in the same talk page, I hope you will visit the discussion and give me your opinions. Thanks! LADave (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Kraft Dinner

I notice how you decided to opt for the veiled curtain of keeping it the most obsure name used by 34 million people as opposed to the 400 mil in the USA and not to mention Kraft is an American company for christ sakes also the name Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is more precise to what the freaking product is. Next time opt for common sense instead of the veiled obsuraity of consensues when there were many people in favor of the move?Perhaps you wanted to keep it the name the Canadians use because they are still loyal to the British crown eh? God Save the Queen is one of their anthem!You sir is what is wrong with this encyclopedia, stick to Math buddy.--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Reaching out

Hiya Kotniski, I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to accomplish by contacting you, but I wanted to try and talk to you about the whole diacritics thing for a second. I know from past experience with you that you're a reasonable and well educated guy, and I have a lot of respect for your views (not that I don't respect Piotr's or Hans Adler's, as well), so... I don't know, I'm hopeful that all of this can be untangled to everyone's general satisfaction.

I'm not against the use of diacritics at all, as long as that use is appropriate. To me, that means that diacritics (which, by the way, I'm using as shorthand to represent accents, umlauts, diaeresis, etc...) should be used for words or names that are "distant" from English, while those words or names that are "closer" to English tend to drop them. In other words, as the (native) English speaking world becomes more comfortable and accepting of any word that is borrowed from a foreign language (the raw use of the word increases), the use of diacritics tends to fade. This is all fairly standard stuff in relation to the habits of English speakers when it comes to loan words.

I think that the largest area of trouble that we have is in the area of athletics, where athletes from Eastern and Southern Europe, South America, Asia, and other places end up in North America and the UK. Since their fame comes form the media coverage of the organization or league that they join, and those leagues have well established practices of systematically dropping diacritics, it seems obvious to me that we should follow that practice with our own article titles. Perhaps the fact that the leagues and the media organizations which cover them have those practices is wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that Wikipedia is a place to fight that sort of battle. There are also instances where the person chooses to make it a point to retain (or revert to) the style where diacritics are used (Bjorn Borg was one such example which was recently given), which I'm perfectly fine with... we can, and should, consider those cases individually. There are, of course, other subject areas where similar things go on, but athletics is the easiest area to point out I think.

Anyway, I'm not more out to remove diacritics completely from the English Wikipedia as I'm supportive of the idea to use them whenever and wherever possible. I'm interested in whatever you might have to say.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, sorry not to have answered this earlier; I haven't been following all the interminable discussions on diacritics that seem to have been going on lately, though I've contributed to discussions on a few specific cases. My view tends to be on the pro-diacritics side; I know in most cases a large majority of English sources probably don't use them, but that doesn't mean it's in any way wrong to use them - it's just a matter of sources' individual style and functions. And for an encyclopedia, which is about giving knowledge to people, it seems that using the diacritics conveys the extra knowledge without any particular inconvenience to those who can't use that knowledge. And if we're going to use them, we should do so consistently, otherwise we risk giving people the impression that the native names of certain subjects are spelt without diacritics when in fact they are. So I don't really see the benefit to the encyclopedia in these recent (and recurring) campaigns to change our practices in this regard.--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A Personal Award

The Reasonable Person With Whom I Often Disagree But Still Respect A Great Deal Award
I'm testing the new WikiLove system, and puzzled for a few minutes about who I would like to thank. It's easy to thank someone that I generally agree with, but I think we should try to do more than that. You and I often disagree, but you're always reasonable and thoughtful, and I enjoy our disagreements. Thank you. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, color me jealous. Seriously, cool.--SPhilbrickT 18:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, yes, cool, thanks :) I had thought this WikiLove thing was something of a silly gimmick, but getting one from the man himself can make you see it in a new light... ;) --Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting input on an RM

Of course, I totally understand that this and this are in the nature of friendly notice, and not canvassing, but I am curious as to why these people's input was not needed eight days ago, when you proposed the move, and suddenly is now. And I fully agree with you that apolitical input is more welcome, but I wish I didn't feel that there was an implication that the input of current participants - me for instance - was politically motivated rather than concerned with article quality. Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It just seemed that everyone in the discussion other than me was regularly to be found on one or other side of perennial Irish disputes.--Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Jimbo Wales said that you're always reasonable and thoughtful, so I knew there must be a reasonable explanation. Scolaire (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Double category

Template:Double category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Geobot

Hi. See Wikipedia:Bot requests. Would it be possible for you to code a bot to generate lists of settlements by country from geonames?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess you are not interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, sorry, somehow I didn't notice this message. But I probably won't have the time to work on this in the near future; already busy with other things.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Administrative division of Poznań

Thanks for this article. Two thoughts: 1) don't forget about talk page wikiproject templates and 2) consider T:TDYK nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Voivodeships

Hi, since you're the local "naming conventions guy", thought you might be interested in this. Maybe it's time to re-activate [4].Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Interrupting posts

It's a matter of personal taste, but I really don't like when editors interrupt other editors posts to respond point by point. It breaks up the flow of the original post, and in long threads, makes it difficult to figure out who wrote what. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Source

I'm not sure if you noticed my answer in the long discussion, so it seems good to explain here that Belczyk's list of province names is an appendix to his detailed article about translation of Polish geographic names. The list is based on a preface to the PWN-Oxford dictionary. Thanks for your contributions to this discussion :-)) Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 20, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

You wrote on "just a thought: colons have spaces after them, so why don't we write our titles so?" [5].

This talk page is called User talk:Kotniski. Maybe the reason Wikipedia:Manual of Style is written the way it is, is for consistency.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, I would envisage doing this consistently for all pages (the MoS was just an example). Here you are, I'll do it for this page as well: {{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk: Kotniski}} like so.--Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk header italics

Special K! Hi again. I've spent several days at work on this subtemplate, and I've left an updated response to you on my talk page. When you have an opportunity, please check it out. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Discussion on bilateral relations

If you would be so kind, please give me a buzz on my talk page when you re-initiate that mass move proposal. Rennell435 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Subcarpathian -> Podkarpackie

Hello Kotniski. You may be interested in this thread about Podkarpacie. Do you think we should replace Subcarpathian with Podkarpackie in related articles? - Darwinek (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not destroy Polish heritage

In first sentence is not enough, and "Johan" is offensive for somebody who safer from Prussians and expressed his will to be recognize as Pole. Change the name if you want have clear conscious. --Cleaghyre (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So Kotniski why you pretend to be a part of WikiProject Poland? It seems to me you do not support facts known in Polish history. Apro pos "This user believes that common sense trumps all other arguments." is this you discovery? Dzierzon say "Truth, truth above all". Unfortunately common sense is not the truth. Now I would like ask you to read the existing article (I am sure you did not - I am sure) and start answer to my notes. You already ignored one. You make a edition war. 20:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC) --Cleaghyre (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reading my wording suggestion on WP:V. I just noticed the discussion there after seeing a mention on Jimbo's page about it, and wow what a LOOOOONNNNGGGGGG discussion over such a tiny thing. I was kind of hoping a little WP:BRD might loosen the gears a little and get some visible progress for things, but I think S-Marshall's joking response below mine is a warning of what to expect at this page unfortunately. :( -- Avanu (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And again

It's not nice to talk about people behind their backs, so I should tell you that I brought up your name here. You will see an objection, and I'm not wholly unsympathetic to it, but in a sense, that train has already left the station. A year ago, when this was probably the only article using the "new" diacritics (remember that discussion?), it was a different story. Now, we have dozens of articles (and categories) moved to the "new" diacritics, and I'd be loath to see them all moved back to the "old" ones, although anything would be preferable to the current mess. Anyway, your input, and perhaps, at long last, some action on this front, would be appreciated. - Biruitorul Talk 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reported for 3RR violation

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kotniski_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29. Betty Logan (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style moves

Hello. I noticed you moved all the Manual of Style pages that I left. Thank you; however, I left them because they had vast amounts of talk page sub-pages, which I couldn't be bothered moving. It doesn't appear that you've moved them either, which is going to cause problems if not corrected soon, especially in the area of archives. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point; I'll get onto it soon unless someone's got an automatic tool for it. By the way, I don't know why you think List of English contractions belongs in Wikipedia: space - I can see why you might want to delete it from article space (though it seems fairly harmless and could easily be sourced if necessary), but it doesn't seem to have any particular internal relevance to the Wikipedia project, does it?--Kotniski (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't remember exactly why I created it but it was going to be some sort of reference point in relation to using contractions on Wikipedia. Perhaps some sort of extra column noting whether the contraction should be used in articles could make it more useful. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I Can't Be With You

[Back|Move Back] I'm sorry IllaZilla did that to you he did it to me too cause I don't agree with them decapitalizing it either for stupid reason one of the songs he mentioned needed the W capitalized because its a 3-worded title. I'm with You that just looks stupid don't it? JamesAlan1986 *talk 11:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kotniski. You have new messages at Talk:Sputnik program.
Message added 11:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 11:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Another --GW… 14:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi I would like to know what these words in English:

  • rycerstwo śląskie
  • rycerstwo małopolskie
  • rycerstwo opolskie
  • rycerstwo wielkopolskie

greetings--Kardam (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Rycerstwo" means knighthood (in the sense of knights, collectively). So it's the Silesian knighthood; the Małopolska (Lesser Poland) knighthood; the Opole knighthood; and the Wielkopolska (Greater Poland) knighthood.--Kotniski (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I saw that you reverted some vandalism on my user page. Thanks for that. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem; that IP was on a spamming spree ;) --Kotniski (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Poles in Lithuania

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poles_in_Lithuania&diff=450072186&oldid=379801484 Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Idea

Template:Idea has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Former guideline

Template:Former guideline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A request

Kotniski, please stop changing the policies without consensus. There's a good discussion taking place on Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence. That's the place to develop a proposal for change, not by repeatedly "raiding" the policy, then reverting. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

At what point have I ever changed a policy? You (and some others) need to learn the difference between substance and presentation - the latter is dire, and we ought to be working together to improve it in the normal Wiki way. It's your continual thoughtless, argument-less reverts that are blocking this process, ensuring that the direness gets locked in. --Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I mean, on this information/material thing you ignore the talk-page thread and just revert with an edit summary which is clearly falsified by the arguments that have been presented in that thread - how un-Wikipedia-like is that?--Kotniski (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask you please to drop the attacks? I'm the opposite of thoughtless when it comes to the policies. You may disagree with me, and you may be right, but I've put a lot of thought into these policies, based on seven years experience of seeing what works on Wikipedia.
As for "information," it implies that the material is propositional and true. "Material" covers everything: facts, opinions, etc. That's why the content policies tend to use that word.
Finally, the discussion asked you not to keep making changes, which is why two editors reverted you, and two others argued against making change without consensus. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
If "the discussion asked me not to keep making changes" (whatever that bizarre statement is supposed to mean) was the only reason that two editors reverted me, then it was a pretty worthless reason and I was right to ignore it. But since you are at last now addressing the topic - why not take your thoughts about why "material" is the right word to the WP:V talk page, where the discussion is taking place? (It's the fact that "material" covers everything which in my view makes it most definitely the wrong word.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You know, you and I could work together on those policies, because we're not so far apart. I respect the way you want to re-evaluate things, and your willingness to go back to basics, and I'd be very happy to have someone like that to collaborate with. But the personal aggression is very off-putting, startling even, because it seems to come from nowhere, and it feels disproportionate. I would really love it if you would tone things down. I am not evil. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, we each feel we are being subjected to personal aggression by the other, so let's both try to avoid arousing such feelings from now on. Hope to discuss these policy-wording matters with you further in the relevant places. --Kotniski (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's easy not to realize that comments we send out can sting on the other end. I'm guilty of it too, and I apologize for doing it. I would normally now send you a Wikilove kitten, but I turned it off in my preferences, so I hope you'll accept a kitten in spirit instead. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
All unreal small animals gratefully received - it's chasing a virtual ball of paper around my carpet as I speak... :-) --Kotniski (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Official policy

Template:Official policy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the includeonly tag. I figured that, given the sensitive nature of the page it was transcluded on, that it'd probably be more confusing than informative to be tagged on the transclusion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh right, I'd agree with that (but that would require noinclude, not includeonly).--Kotniski (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
D'oh. I knew I'd picked a bad day to give up caffeine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Settlecollapse

Template:Settlecollapse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Conspirators

Kotniski!!! You had change to start reasonable discussion instead you choose unreasonable pressure on me. Nobody need to bend to you wishes. More over you found "ethical" to ask German revisionists to block me. Here is my accusation on the conspiracy:

Accusation: Skäpperöd (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Decision: Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Both people seems to Serafins's sic

The historical/ scientific argument argument no important only: "No matter whether this is a Serafin/EEML/whoever's sock or not, Kotniski should be instantly relieved from having to deal with this person." THIS IS A TIME THAT THIS KIND OF CONSPIRATORS/EDITORS BE PUT OUT OF LINE.

If you want peace with me ask you friends to withdraw the block and start argue instead kicking, biting and conspiring.--[Cleaghyre

Galina Fokinā listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Galina Fokinā. Since you had some involvement with the Galina Fokinā redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus and unanimity

Kotniski, let me have information on a part of Wikipedia:Consensus. The part is the following: "Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes." You and other editors prepared the part. There is no link to get further information on the part. I don't know if there are real cases in which they followed the thought either. Does the part mean that voting should be done to decide something in some cases? Now I'm trying to gather such information to introduce the part to Japanese Wikipedia. Sweeper tamonten (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

It seems you have asked me a question. To insure that there can be no misunderstanding down the line will you please edit your comment to add my name if that is in fact the case. I'm finished for today but I will answer you in the next day or so. Thanks Blackash have a chat 09:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress notices

Thanks for posting those manually; I'm looking in to the issue. --Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 14:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiabilith, not truth

I appreciate your willingness to compromise. Also, I think your most recent edits are an improvement. I know you know my edit was in good faith. My understanding always has been that V and NOR grew out of NPOV, and that the three are linked, historically and logically. I certainly do believe that the idea of "not truth" derives from the NPOV page. Larry Sanger wrote an essay on the philosophical basis for NPOV which is explicitly relativist. Also, the NPOV page used to include a quote from Jimbo:

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

I do not view everything Jimbo has said as holy writ, but I interpret him to mean that we can endlessly argue over the truth, but we should be able to verify that someone believes something and all agre to that. You may think I am reading too much into this but I do see a real link from this to "Verifiability, not truth."

But even if there wasn't - I do think any essay on policy should be consistent with all core policies.

Well, I am happy with your last edit; I just wanted to explain to you my motivation. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Sending you this for your motto that common sense trumps... Mardyke (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:RM

Seeing as you participated in the last round, I have proposed that Journey Through the Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be moved, again.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your change of policy

This edit by you changes our core policy. Did you ever discuss it with anybody? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't remember - probably not, as I don't see anything novel or controversial in it (it's just saying that "consensus" on Wikipedia sometimes means a large enough majority, which I think everyone knows from experience to be the case).--Kotniski (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In History of Polish, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Proto-Indo-European (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 13:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding repeatedly reverting without substantive objection. The thread is "Uninvolved admin - please take a look".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Article titles. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

New RFC discussion

I took the liberty to use a quote of yours to put you down in support of the original wording at this new rfc section so you didn't have to repeat yourself. Feel free to delete/change or whatever as appropriate... it's your words. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Hasła na plwiki

Hej. Kiedyś nam dopisałeś dużo haseł. Wiele z nich to były opisy civil parishes. Ale później, gdy podawałeś liczbę ludności, notorycznie pisałeś miejscowość liczyła (np. w St. Giles in the Wood), co jest niepoprawne bo CP to nie miejscowości (lepiej "ludność wynosiła ..." czy coś). Idzie to jakoś naprawić? Także w niektórych przypadkach civil parish ma tę samą nazwę co wieś (village) i nie jestem pewien, czy to ująłeś. Masur (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

fyi

[6]. Kind regards. Wifione Message 10:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

wp:title problems

Kotniski, I see intemperate words between two people I've known for some time and like. We need both of you at title, at MoS, and elsewhere. I wonder whether there could be a cooling off and the emphasis shifted towards talk-page discussion rather than making bold changes on the policy page itself in the knowledge that they are controversial? Tony (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've been discussing on his talk page, and I hope no long-term harm will be done. Though in the case of the change at WP:AT he reverted, it wasn't a "bold" change - it was very much a change made after the discussion, and in implementation of the result of that discussion, as one would normally expect.--Kotniski (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Re comments on Catholic School close

Kotniski, in the Catholic School close discussion you stated I do not understand Mike Cline's comment Given that lack of understanding, I think I owe you some explanation. I am fairly confident that the comment you are referring to was "This is the typical search for the Perfect title”. The supporters of the move eloquently cite their interpretations of policy believing sincerely that the new title is better (or more perfect) that the current title. While all along the opposers, equally eloquent, cite their interpretations of policy believing the current title is just as good (or maybe even more perfect) than the suggested new title. When, if we were brutally honest with ourselves, we would realize that either title is suitable for the article, for the encyclopedia. I don’t think the argument can be made that one or the other title actually results in a better WP article. While this type of discussion goes on, and this particular one consumed a lot of time, bytes and emotion, we are spending volunteer energy, not on improving the content of WP and this article, but on essentially meaningless title changes—meaningless, because if they never occurred there would be no negative impact on WP and if they do occur, there is really no positive impact. I blame this on our titling policy which gives license to editors to derive complex, conflicting and in some cases bizarre interpretations of multiple criteria and conditions in defense of their perfect title. The fact that these types of discussions result in no consensus decisions is not surprising. But equally not surprising is the truth that in the search for the perfect WP title, someone going to disagree with what perfect means. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, which I fully understand, though to be honest, I don't remember in what context I said "I do not understand Mike Cline's comment", and I can't even find it on any of the relevant pages I can think of where I may have said it (so are you sure it was me?)--Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You are right, you didn't say that. The editor just above you did on WT:RM and I didn't catch the change in editors. Sorry, I'll try and explain it to the other guy. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kotniski/Archive_7&oldid=1144609697"