User talk:Poeticbent/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BIP (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) 12:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust

I saw you reinstated that section. That's fine, but if it's going to be in the article, it should be accurate, and backed by sources. The data is in terrible disarray. Which Grodzisk, Kosów, Radun, Szymanów, Janówka, Zameczek, Rakowiec? Why is Główne, in Lublin Voivodeship, matched with an "area" of Sierpc, in Masovian Voivodeship? Almost every entry in the table makes no sense. We can't just leave this rubbish on the page, but I can't find a reference that would help fix the entries. Do you have something? I'd be happy to help with the overhaul if I only had something to work with. Cheers, --JaGa^talk 17:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polesie Voivodeship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Repatriation of Poles (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) 11:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Already reviewed DYKs

Poeticbent, I see that you've been striking out already reviewed articles in the old one at the top of the WT:DYK page, but not the one closer to the bottom, which is the currently active one. Just wanted to let you know to concentrate on the latest one, WT:DYK#More reviews needed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Tylman

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

For you at Template:Did you know nominations/The ScareHouse. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be nice, but what I meant was if you could explain on the Hauntwood Magazine? I don't see it in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moral conversion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loyola University (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) 11:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Fałszywka

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Moral conversion

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

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.

Emeryk Hutten-Czapski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mińsk

National Museum, Wrocław (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kijów

Religious conversion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Etc

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Parable of the sunfish at DYK

Hi Poeticbent,

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I've learned a lot through the process and while I'm confident there are no copyright issues you've helped identify a serious underlying problem with the article: it looks like there are copyright issues. I haven't decided how to resolve that yet, but the resolution will take place outside of the DYK process.

Second, and hopefully more interesting, I had asked you what process you used for concluding that the parable text fell outside of fair use. After quite a bit of reading I've determined this wasn't a fair question: there is no process. The fair use exception was intended to be ambiguous. While this may be sensible from a legal standpoint, it doesn't resolve the situation when two editors have different good-faith opinions about the fair use status of a piece of text.

So rather than asking if the parable falls under fair use, I decided to ask where it falls within existing wikipedia practice. The entire text of wikipedia is available for download (9GB zipped, 40GB unzipped) and it's a trivial matter to write a script that records how many words occur between each set of <blockquote> </blockquote> tags. The methodology is a little rough: I remove special characters (anything between & and ;) and wiki markup (anything between {{ and }}), but not html tags or wikilinks. The effect is that the counts are slightly higher than they would be otherwise (e.g., the parable text would have gone from 139 to 132 words if I had remembered to parse out the <br/> tags), but I think it's good enough for a first pass.

After letting my scripts run for eight hours I have 35491 unique blockquotes. As you would expect there are several outliers, but 99% (35840) of them have less than 300 words; this is the dataset I'll be working with. The histogram looks like:

Granted, some of these (and I don't know how many) will be quoting from sources with no copyright; a subset will eventually have to be checked by hand. But I can now tell you (looking at the raw data) that a sample of 139 words is larger than 87% of all of the samples I looked at. While that's on the high end of the spectrum, I wouldn't consider it to be unreasonably so. (You still might consider it unreasonable, of course; there's nothing unreasonable with thinking that 13% of all wikipedia article using blockquotes have quotes that are too big.)

My questions to you: is this useful? How could it be made more useful?

Thanks much,

GaramondLethe 15:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My own take on what DYK is not

• WT:DYK is not a place for analysis of editing patterns across the entire project.
• DYKtalk is not designed to hold seminars on writing methodology.
• DYKnom promotion in not a guarantee secured by a scientific process.

Nevertheless, your post makes for good reading. All best, Poeticbent talk 19:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You made a couple of good-faith mistakes in your review. They aren't worth arguing over, but I would like to make sure they don't happen again. I think you understand now that copying material that's no longer under copyright is not a copyright violation. I don't have a sense that you understand the "fair use" exception to copyright. That's fine; it was designed to be murky. So rather than require reviewers to get law degrees, I'd rather have reviewers say "That block quote is 200 words, that in the 90% percentile across the project, I like to see DYK blockquotes stay within 75-80%."

I don't believe providing this information is either a writing seminar or a guarantee. It's similar to AfD participants who have a 5000-edit rule for nominees: they may make an exception from time to time, and having 5k edits certainly is not a guarantee, but being able to tell a failed nominee "You're doing fine, come back when you have another couple thousands edits" is infinitely more helpful than "You haven't edited enough".

You do raise an interesting point in that comparing a DYK nomination to work across the entire project might not be fair. There may be enough DYKs at this point that I can make a useful analysis of that subset.

In closing, please be a little more cautious about making accusations of copyright violations. I'm an academic, and if I had been editing under my own name I would have been raising seven different kinds of hell to get some sort of official admission that no, there were no copyright violations there. You don't need that drama and I don't need that drama. If you're not certain that the material is still under copyright and that fair use does not apply, just say "That blockquote is too long."

Thanks for reading.

GaramondLethe 21:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Responding to you addendum elsewhere: WP:NFC does not mention song lyrics specifically: they're treated just like any other copyrighted material. As such, it's fine to have them on wikipedia so long as they are appropriately licensed, no longer under copyright protection, or the portion that is quoted falls under the fair use exception. As one example of many, the lyric "She's over-bored and self-assured" is quoted appropriately in the Smells Like Teen Spirit article.

I may be reading you too literally. If what you meant was WP:NFC describes why we don't put complete lyrics on wikipedia, well, sure, but we don't put complete books on wikipedia either for the same reason: it falls afoul of the "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" clause of the fair use test. GaramondLethe 03:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You may want to comment

On this. I am just too tired ATM :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for National Museum, Wrocław

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GibraltarPediA Options followup

You participated earlier in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, in which a proposed moratorium on Gibraltar-related DYKs was rejected and a set of options was agreed. There is currently a suggestion from editors who did not participate in that discussion that a moratorium should be imposed, overturning the earlier agreement. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Time-sensitive DYK nomination. Prioryman (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Sebastian Montelupi (1516 - 1600).jpg

Where you able to find out who and when created the engraving? If it is 16th century, it would be PD, even if we used the stamp as a source to recreate it (due to Template:PD-Art). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Piotr, I have no idea where the engraving originated from. I suspect it was redesigned for the stamp with new elements added to the background, which are not a part of the original artwork. If I ever come across the genuine source, I will upload it to Commons. Poeticbent talk 14:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sztafeta

Yes, I like it. Go ahead with the translation of all names of the chapters. The book is great, and I only wish I had more time to write about it. Furthermore, I keep on working on all towns and cities of Lesser Poland, did not know it requires so much work, and so much is still left. All the best. Tymek (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks about the translations Tymek. I can add more, once you develop the missing subsections. I know very well about your work on Polish towns and cities. I've been helping you out with little bits and pieces of mos:layout for some time now. What you do is terrific, and definitely some of those 5x expansions of single-line stubs could easily be DYKed. Poeticbent talk 14:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The history of some of these towns is very interesting, and good material for a DYK. Good example would be Nowy Korczyn. The problem is that for DYK they need proper referencing, for which I never have enough time. All I do is translate Polish Wikipedia articles. Anyway, Lesser Poland is the most neglected province of Poland. The current voivodeship is a remnant of what Lesser Poland should be. In the late 1990s, when territorial reform was introduced, Poland was governed by Solidarity Electoral Action, whose leaders had no idea about our history and who were mostly tied with Upper Silesia. As a result, even the towns of Zywiec and Jaworzno were incorporated into Silesia, and Czestochowa was not allowed to join Kielce in one province. Tymek (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Tymek, when translating articles from Polish Wikipedia, please remember also to open the article talk page and place the following code at the top, every time: {{translated page|pl|{{PAGENAME}}}}

The syntax pl PAGENAME will automatically insert the name of your article there, and the interwiki link, no sweat.

On the right is how your finished template will look like:

Cheers, Poeticbent talk 16:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Emeryk Hutten-Czapski

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sebastiano Montelupi

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 24 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 Czesław Łuczak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rector (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) 09:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Roberto Bandinelli

Good job expanding it, it is now DYK worthy. Today is the last day for it to be nominated, so... go for it! :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

re: Montelupi Palace

How about a hook shaming the said owner? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

They could only be shamed if somehow they were also made aware of the Wiki front page exposure; however, this is rather unlikely. Poeticbent talk 03:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with the DYK on Marrakesh. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. And thanks, Dr. Blofeld. Poeticbent talk 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Roberto Bandinelli

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Wojciech Stattler

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/William Calvin Chase, Washington Bee

If you have time (and it is not a conflict of interest) can you also Review William Calvin Chase. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not, Doug Coldwell. But, would you be interested in a QPQ for example? Apparently, there are a couple of my own DYK submissions still awaiting review at this time. I can take a look at your William Chase nomination, if you agree to get the ball rolling on either Malczewski or Lampi articles (one already taken). The choice is yours. Poeticbent talk 03:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Malczewski --Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC). The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Question - do you Review large multiple article DYK nominations? I'm thinking a couple dozen or so.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jacek Malczewski

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Franciszek Ksawery Lampi

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irena Sendler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 11:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Garden of the Righteous Among the Nations

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Maria Bal

Hello! Your submission of Maria Bal 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! Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

30 in 1 DYK

Answer to your QPQ query: As one of the contributors to this article, I understand the concern. I owe you 29 QPQs. It will take me some time to work this off, but I think the system needs this effort in order to work. Please be patient, as real life is intruding on my wikipediaing. But I will get around to it, and keep you posted. If Doug Coldwell works on some of these, I'm sure he'll let us know, and it might reduce what I have to do. But I/we will get there, I promise. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:36, 12 November 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 Society of Polish Artists "Sztuka", you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Association and Jan Stanisławski (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) 12:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Maria Bal

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Poniatowa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Under construction (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) 11:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Neighbors

• Walenciak in Przegląd: Czy szok jest najlepszą metodą? Agnieszka Arnold, z którą rozmowę publikujemy obok, mówi, że nie. Unfortunately the interview isn't available.
• Some other sources say that Arnold accepted Gross' book because her documentaries were ignored. Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please find that source and link it here. If it's reliable, we can put it in. She said in her short reply to his question, that shocking the audience is not the best method... but there's no way of telling what she meant by that. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ferlo Desert at DYK

Why require the author to do a review? Reviews are only mandatory for self-nominations. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Society of Polish Artists "Sztuka"

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Mikołaj Zyblikiewicz

Very nice article. I cleaned it up a little. You might take a look at the changes. You tend to write in the passive voice, using words like "had" and "have" a lot. I was taught that active voice was generally better. Please don't take this advice as harsh criticism. Most of our editors make the same choice. But it is a pet peeve of mine, and something we can all easily cure. Keep up the good work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And if I misattributed the prose, I apologize. I didn't look much at the edit history. BTW, I love your User page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I also apologize if I appeared to be (or was) either patronizing or pedantic. As I said, I really liked the article, and these things did not detract from its worth or the obvious effort you put into it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Added comment and partial review to Template:Did you know nominations/Mikołaj Zyblikiewicz. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

When you've put in the (sfn), please let me know and I will put in the "tick" at Template:Did you know nominations/Mikołaj Zyblikiewicz. That should (I think) satisfy the sceptics (or skeptics, depending upon which brand of English we're using. I assume you use British, but I could be wrong). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the footnote I added nicely sets the stage for astute readers. One can see the meeting between the Emperor and the Cracow president in a much greater context. It is the epicenter of the whirlpool. But maybe that's just my wishful thinking. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you add the first name IPA. There is a letter and a dipthong there that isn't in the usual Roman alphabet,and I am sure it will throw some off. Sorry, I don't mean to be a nag. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm really impressed with your resolve, 7&6=thirteen. All done, Poeticbent talk 18:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Being a nonspeaker of Polish, I can see problems that probably are easily overlooked by you. I do like to see articles produced that are top shelf in their layout, research, verifiability, etc. When I click on random Wikipedia articles, I am frequently dismayed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand... and I share your sentiments. Poeticbent talk 19:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Tomasz Pryliński (1847–1895)

Tomasz Pryliński (1847–1895) Polish Wikipedia. This could be a relatively easy DYK, for you, I think. And it would get rid of an empty space (which is now a red link) in your current article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I plan on getting it done soon. Thanks, 7&6=thirteen. Some red links are also OK by our new going standards at DYK, so it is not a problem right away. Poeticbent talk 18:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. No worries. I just thought this would be up your allée. If you put it together, I would be pleased to second chair and edit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

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.

Mikołaj Zyblikiewicz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Attorney, Sambor and Tatra

Sukiennice Museum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Per Krafft

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Krakow population

1. Britain and Poland-Lithuania, Richard Unger,Jakub Basista, online

Population of Krakow in 1100 (5,000) in 1300 (10,000) in 1500 (17,000) in 1550 (18,000) in 1600 (15,000) There are also estimates for other Polish cities.

2. Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, André Vauchez,Richard Barrie Dobson,Michael Lapidge, online

In 1500 Krakow population was between 10,000 and 20,000.

3. At Europe's Borders: Medieval Towns in the Romanian Principalities, Laurențiu Rădvan online In 1500 Krakow had under 20,000 population

4. Commemorating the Polish Renaissance Child:, Jeannie Labno online Krakow in 1500 18,000

5.East Central Europe in the Middle Ages: 1000-1500,Jean W. Sedlar, page110 In the mid-14th century the population was 10,000 and it was 15,000 by 1500.

online

DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

Hello, Poeticbent. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Ancestry.com. Thank you. --TFD (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Olga Lipińska

Witam,

Usunąłem info o rzekomym żydowskim nazwisku Olgi Lipińskiej z uwagi na brak wiarygodnego źródła - trudno za taki uznać wpis na jednej stronie internetowej, szczególnie że nie cechuje jej raczej obiektywizm i rzetelne podejście do tematu. Avadoro (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mikołaj Zyblikiewicz

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire

I'd be interested in your thoughts there; I've posted mine at User:Piotrus/CERFC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

AN/I Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fish^Barking? 11:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did you revert my close

Why did you revert the close of the RFC? The RFC is closed. Discussion was over. Its been since Oct 12th and was marked for procedural close as per standards. You are welcome to your opinion, but the RFC as is, is done and closed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You are not a neutral observer... and this was not a vote to be closed. Your edits were partisan. Your opinions put in the process box were not only personal, but also out of place. That,s why. Poeticbent talk 16:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Now listen up, and listen well - Regardless of whether you consider ChrisGualtieri to be "neutral", or not, the fact is the RFC was marked for close, Chris has closed it - if you have any issues with the comments, or the manner in which the process was carried out, take it up through the proper channels. Otherwise, the RFC is shut, that is the end of it. You've reverted his close twice already - quite unnecessarily and without merit: Revert it one more time and it is YOU who will wind up reported for disruptive editing. I have restored the close as placed, undo it again and the Administrator's noticeboard (Incidents) section is your next stop. Clear? Fish^Barking? 00:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• — You come to my own place to threaten and insult me? How sad you choose to present yourself like that to others. Poeticbent talk 05:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• • What is sad, is when you threaten and insult people with being taken to ANI through an edit summary, Poeticbent. Chris has made it quite clear that he is uninvolved, I've looked back and I'm leaning towards agreeing with him. If you have problems with that, deal with them properly - as it stands right now, I will choose to present myself as I have seen you present yourself to others. Regardless of where I am, my page, your page, half way up Route 66, it doesn't matter. You get what you give. Fish^Barking? 11:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering I've never edited it or viewed the article before closing the RFC, yeah, I'm an uninvolved editor who stumbled across a valid request to close an RFC, the oldest one on the page as well. I'm not even from the same country, I don't know two things about the subject and I don't personally care about the subject. What I do care about is proper procedure and making sure that Wikipedia articles are constantly improving. Reliable sources and verifiable claims are part of my duties. No one owns a Wikipedia article and you have been grossly incivil and combative. This is not a battleground and I'm not going to spend all day picking a fight over something like this. I think you should calm down and realize I'm not doing anything like 'misuse of process tools, partisan editing, revert warring, fakery and general bullying.' Also, what was with the 'You're attempting to gain upper hand in a discussion by pretending to be archiving a nonexistent XfD with a closing admin box.'? The article was not up for deletion, it was an RFC. You don't need to be an admin to close an RFC, and not all discussions need to be closed, this one was requested to be closed. I think I've explained as well as I can. Discussion of it continues at ELN as you already know. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please, do not call yourself and uninvolved editor again, when you force your personal point of view on others and place it in an administrative process box, as if it was a word of God. You are not an admin. You closed that RFC by way of lecturing your own peers with contempt. You deleted entire section from the article without a word of consensus (and pretended to be talking voodoo, very funny), even though you know you're dealing with a long-standing controversy. However, you also don't seem to understand the true impact of your own actions, therefore I will try to get some more answers at ANI. Poeticbent talk 05:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly Poet, many people here remind me a person described in this poem by Nikolay Nekrasov. No, this not you and not Chris. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the poem, My very best wishes. Good introduction to the work of Nikolay Nekrasov. Makes me want to become a fan of his. Poeticbent talk 16:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite an olive branch, but I mean well

I know you probably don't care for me much, given the circumstances. Though I am here on an entirely different matter. Just to be clear, its not eating humble pie or crow or anything, but I am genuinely concerned as to why the previous article about you was deleted? Unless I am missing something isn't the Związek Polskich Artystów Plastyków an official association of professional artists in Poland? There by, in extension, being chosen as a representative of a major city such as Kraków confer status? Hell, if Wikipedia has more on some third rate fashion designers simply because of 'Project Runway', doesn't this put you essentially at the forefront of Polish arts back in 1980? Sounds like a claim of notability by itself. I honestly believe that if the article was recreated with a few tweaks and a few alterations it could stand. I don't much care for the drama, but it sounds like you meet GNG. WP:ARTIST is useless and out of date anyways, its a lame catchall for the deletionists. They'd shoot down Brian Muir (sculptor) if it wasn't for the work with Darth Vader alone. Call it what you will, but the work for academics is the proper one I go by. And you seem to meet under being part of a professional body and organization, being nominated for a special priviledge and event (as the sole representative I believe) and you've have enduring work for many magazines and advertising campaigns. If you can live off your work, I consider that 'professional' because I can't live off my artwork or my writings, despite the circles taking an interest in them. Out of 38 million people in Poland and all the hundreds of careers possible, professional artists who graduate from the upper eschelon of art schools, a mere 8,500 are represented by an official body. If you have been feared in a national museum at the behest of the curator of the official organization, then I'm certain that meets WP:ACADEMIC and only a few sources short of WP:GNG. I'd be willingly to take a crack at it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the offer, ChrisGualtieri. Please accept my apology for having misjudged you. You're a good man, and you do possess the ability to step back and look at a broader picture contrary to what I said in distress. I appreciate your desire and willingness to recreate the old article, but I don't want to stir up things anymore that will only cause trouble. I am an active editor in Wikipedia. The longer I stay here the more I realize that people will always try to take vengeance in response to a grievance. Targetting a BLP bio here, where "anyone can edit", is the easiest and most effective way to get payback. "Let sleeping dogs lie." Poeticbent talk 00:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah I understand. I really didn't get the whole EEML thing or much of which you talked about. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, a few months short of a year. I find Wikipedia to be refreshing at best and petty at worse. Such troubles don't matter much in the grand scheme of things, but I see a glimpse of your plight. 4 afd's is excessive. Fail to delete twice and you should stay is my opinion, otherwise its rolling the die like in court except appealing is a pain in the ass and there is no rules on double jeopardy. I feel there is a strong line between GNG and the subpage notability guidelines. Alas, I don't have the backing of the community to rewrite such rules. We are not all bad here on Wiki, I'm a stickler for good policy and caretaking of articles, after that not much really matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

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.

Aleksander Fredro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Canon

Zemsta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Canon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)