Reasons for my raising wikistress: Gross privacy violations

Wikipedia is a kawaii mistress :)

[edit] Current RfAdminship

[edit] RE: Copyright

Piotr - I am a bit confused. Does my entire section on outsourcing need to be re-written or can I just place the text in quotations marks to show it was directly taken from another article? Your help would be appreciated! JFA7 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Piotr - As you know i've begun work on re-writing the outsourcing section of our article. When will the copyright warning be removed from our article and replaced with the text i've been composing? Thanks! JFA7 (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Food Power

Piotr, Do we need to have a group meeting with you or something like that? is it still possible for our article to receive good article status? I am worried.

Dorothy R Smith (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well i have not made edits because the sections have been removed. When will the clean sections that shaq did not put up be returned? I cannot change the page numbers etc. that we need to do without being able to re read my edits and my information to find where i got it from.

Dorothy R Smith (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Impact of Globalization on Women in China

Piotr, should we schedule a group meeting with you to discuuss our article? Ajr36 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom questions

I'm so sorry I didn't notice your added question until just now when I went to review the page. I've given it a go and hope that addresses your concern. Shell ^babelfish 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting

Piotr,

Can I please schedule a time to meet with you ASAP regarding my section of Group 7's article? I am very concerned about the issues surrounding our article and my section and want to amend this situation without serious ocnsequences as soon as possible. Thank you! Emm66 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question answered

Hey, sorry for the excessively long delay, but I've answered your questions for the ArbCom election. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like to know. Thanks! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting

Yes, I can meet after Wednesday's lecture. Emm66 (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotr, I have made what I deemed the neccesary changes to amend the issues in my section, located here. Please let me know if you see any other issues concerning copyright, and I will fix them immediately. Our group plans to meet to improve the flow and cohesiveness of our article, as well as amend the issue of Western bias. Do you have any recommendations as far as how we might address the bias without completely altering our article? Emm66 (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit] DYK

Because you like scary orange messages so much, here's one: I confirmed T:TDYK#Jakub Wujek Bible. Ucucha 20:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting

Piotr,

Would you like to meet with me after tomorrow's lecture or next Wednesday's lecture? I was confused by your email. Thank you! Erika Moul Emm66 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nominees currently on hold

How do we get rid of this hold?--Dam59 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Jakub Wujek Bible

On December 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jakub Wujek Bible, 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.

[edit] Question

Still remains - my #5. No hurry, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that you had added another question. I've responded. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EEML arbcase

I've been watching (and occasionally commenting) on the EEML case, and we've chatted before about the nature of disruption, what constitutes real disruption, mudslinging, and other such topics. I've tried to answer yours and others questions about what the arbs think is so bad that you all need to be banned/topic banned in an open, civil, and objective manner. I've usually taken the position of the majority of arbs simply because of the nature of the questions, like saying "well they are topic banning you and calling 'this' the evidence, so apparently they are taking 'this' as disruption via <insert disruption type here>, and here is what I concider a reasonable explination why". I admit that there are some things you are accused of that I consider credible, and others I consider very much lacking in the proof department.

This one, however, had me reeling. Taken from Bainers new FoF's.

argues to keep the article, "since it is a snowball anyway, and it may be a good proof that sometimes I disagree with some of you and agree with Offliner..." [20090625-0245]

Taken at face value, thats very damning. It is, at its very core, a prime example of the deceptive editing practices you have been accused of for quite some time and like a rising tide, it elevates the credibility of all the other accusations of bad faith. It undermines every attempt of yours to reach out to people that disagree with you.

Please do not take this as an effort to antagonise you. This is an honest request for you to rebutt the above statement as clearly as possible. I'm putting this on your talkpage because I don't think another 'ZOMG LOOK WHAT POITRUS DID!' post is worth anything on the case page (also I'm hoping in vain that a dozen people dont show up to jump down your throat before you get a chance to answer). I'm looking for your responce to this before I cast any jugdement. You at least deserve the oppertunity to defend yourself, and yes I am prepared to listen and take what you say seriously. I will not hold it against you if you choose not to answer, as that is your right. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon, this is a very simple case: I meant all I said in the email and on wiki. I am an inclusionist, I thought the article should be kept, it does show I and my colleagues can disagree, and it was a snow keep anyway... what am I missing? PS. You may want to use a browser with a spellcheck. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a reasonable answer. The jump from your interpretation and my interpretation is rather large, though, and I find myself having trouble making it. I suppose the real answer is hidden behind the question of if you would have voted keep if was not already snowed. That can't be told, of course. I keep reading it again and again, and I try to take you at your word... but it still leaves a bad taste. I'm sorry.

Feel free to archive this, I am satisfied with your answer and I'd rather it didn't lie around your talk page as flame bait. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am an inclusionist. I would never, ever vote delete, just because somebody asked me to, or to push a POV and destroy encyclopedic content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify. I don't want what *I* said to become an invitation for other people to pile on with accusations and such. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) Well, there's really the point. Is the mention of something going on a "canvassing campaign" — which assumes the EEML members created the list for the sole purpose of edit-warring and for infesting WP with its mono-nationalist-lithic plague, or is it a group of editors interested in the same topical sphere who, in the end, express their own thoughts and bring their own sources to the argument and couldn't give a rat's ass whether or not other EEML members agree, let alone rush in to blindly support one another. (NOT!) As I've mentioned in the case evidence, there were many explitives over contentious issues, but as they were nevertheless done as personal expression, not personal attack, dialog could and would always continue. Sadly, in an atmosphere where timing is everything (based on timings I'm accused of responding to "canvassing" even though I read email once a week and check Wikipedia multiple times a day, sad but true), no one seems to care about the intent of the list, only the about the black and scheming hearts of its members.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thank you

For being specific instead of general in your FoF in the EEML case (I refer in particular to the Canvassing findings). Could you consider a rewording of the Disruption findings to resemble those as well? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. I wanted to note that I've recognized the issue you've raised some time ago, and proposed a surgical remedy that gained community support (as preferable to a crude topic ban). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on identifying further examples. Re remedies, I will vote on those once I've finished with the findings of fact, however I'm unlikely to support a remedy based on that proposal. --bainer (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. As long as we are operating on the level of specific examples instead of vague generalities, it should be possible to clarify certain things and learn from errors made. I find "seven instances of canvassing" much, much more helpful than vague "edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution". I see that you are supporting this proposal - you aren't going to propose an alternative with a better wording (specific, numbered examples) then? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for pointing out the specific diffs. I find it very helpful in understanding the situation. I do have however one clarifying question: would it be correct to say that many of the diffs listed where not disruptive due to their content, but where disruptive due to the way they originated (i.e. being improperly canvassed)? For example this edit introduced a better referenced version that has been stable for the past 4 months; or here I was restoring referenced information removed without explanation by a now-permbanned editor. Hence the content-improving quality of those edits is not disputed, but the problem arose since they involved improper solicitation (canvassing)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

To an extent, yes. In the first example you give, had you and Molobo worked on the Kr%C3%BCger material on his talk page (which of course, he could still access even as a blocked user), then there would not have been this problem, as the process could have been subjected to all the normal editorial scrutiny. With regards to your second example, the substance of the content is of no concern to the Arbitration Committee; rather, what concerns us is you asking for other people to perform reverts for you so that you would appear not to be performing many reverts. --bainer (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] transwiki from pl wikipedia

By anybody yes please put your name down. We need Polish speaking editors to help list and trnaslate articles from Polish wiki into English. Given time Fritzpoll hopefully will add a Polish missing article directory for people to translate. Ideally we'd have a bot transferring articles too but.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You can sign your name at the foot of Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Polish. Yes basically the project is geared towards identifying the full list of missing articles from others wikipedias, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Danish/Missing articles directory for instance which are bot generated (articles without en: links on the other wiki). Soon enough the Polish directory will be drawn up and make it easier for people to work through the lists. Well the idea is to translate articles in their entirety from the other language wiki into english but often the quality may not be brililant but the subject notable so it would be a combination of translating and finding external lsources to support what is being said. You then credit the author of the foreign wiki article on the talk page for example {translated|pl|Frederic Chopin}. There are two sides to the project one is starting missing articles and translating and the other is expanding existing articles which are tagged with e.g {Expand Polish}. I'm sure you've seen these about. Well the tag puts them in categories to be translated. Unfortunately we have an enorumous amount of existing articles which need translation let alone the mililions of missing articles in the various languages so what we need above all else is numbers who speak "foreign" languages and are able to consistently process articles from other wikipedias into english. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so as polish wikipedia is a different site to english. Ideally it would be solved as Kotniski suggested to have one encyclopedia available in different languages. as one project. That would maximise the contributors and avoid such probelms of uneveness between wikipedias but is not of course without its problems. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EEML

Please try and choose your words more carefully. The term stalking carries a number of negative connotations that are best applied in other circumstances. KnightLago (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, if you have questions on the case, it is best to email them directly to the committee. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry about the email responses you have received. However, email remains the best way I know of to get your questions answered. KnightLago (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On the development of articles

Is it possible that in a year, or five, or ten, some formerly private wiki is brought into the light that shows the original the collaborative development of articles that were later added to Wikipedia in one consolidated edit? If this is possible, was any consideration made to copyright situation on this private wiki? Did it take a few weeks to figure out how to manage the copyright? If it was quicker, I worry that copyright wasn't considered deeply enough. I hope the answer to the first question is "No" (or "Not to a great extent"), or else that those involved are much more clever than I am. I am having a difficult time imagining how to execute such a thing (especially with Europeans involved) were copyright is not a substantial problem. If you don't know of anything like this going on, please quash the idea if ever someone suggests it. The problems are very likely insurmountable and the longer the development of such articles are kept hidden the more difficult it will be to save the articles when it all comes to light.--BirgitteSB 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to hear there is nothing to worry about right now, but I wish you might understand the basis of my concerns. I don't want to see EE articles end up in one of the giant copyright investigations because the people posting the edits didn't entirely write the creative content themselves nor giver proper credit to those that did. Obviously I also have other entirely different concerns about how this might happen which I am ignoring for the moment. But I thought this particular concern might be one you might feel equally to me as it directly concerned the fate of the articles. I am worried it might be something those involved might not completely consider. You are in the loop there, so please pass on these concerns if people ever consider doing something along these lines.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Writing up experiences

Sure. I'm not sure how much it will differ from describing a typical day at the CP job, but there are a few differences. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EU

Piotr,

Hello. I know you made a comment about rewriting some of the European section and I did. I just wanted to make sure it is ok and falls within the guidelines of wikipedia. thanks Kmm131 (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

I left some comments at T:TDYK#Constance of Greater Poland and T:TDYK#Polish-Ottoman alliance. Ucucha 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Graph and Chart

I was asking you in class if I was able to use a copy and pasted chart and graph. I have found a graph from a government web site [1] that I should be able to use I just have no idea how to put it on as well as the chart I found[2] any help for getting them on the article page at a bigger size than the current thumbnail we have on the page would be appreciated. Thank You Tuna12 (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Polish-Ottoman alliance

On December 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish-Ottoman alliance, 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.

[edit] Sociology review

Hi Piotrus. I have significantly improved the sociology article since you last gave your opinion as to whether or not it might be worthy of GA status. Would you care to reconsider, or lend further advice? The scope and topics section, in particular, has been greatly improved. If you yourself know a lot about sociology, which I assume you do, bearing in mind your reviews of Erving Goffman, Anthony Giddens, etc, why not help get the article get to the next level - I appear to be the only one editing it apart from vandals!!--Tomsega (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] extra credit blogpost

Hello,

I have done an extra credit blogpost regarding nationalism versus patriotism here: http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/12/nationalism-versus-patriotism-extra.html

thanks Rgg6 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)