User talk:Milicz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Reality is a commodity. 2 Witaj na wiki! 3 Image Tag 4 Nesvizh Castle 5 meta-puppet 6 Radio Maryja POV 7 Re: Radio Maryja 8 Hej 9 Invitation 10 reality 11 The Colbert Report link 12 Thank you for your Poland-related contributions 13 Untagged image 14 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Andrzej Niedzielan celebrating after goal.jpg}

[edit] Reality is a commodity.

You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact. We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge.

- Stephen Colbert

[edit] Witaj na wiki!

W imieniu naszego skromnego i nieformalnego polskiego zaścianka wzajemnej adoracji witam na angielskiej wiki :) Co do Twojego pytania - nie wiem ilu ludzi jest zainteresowanych. Ale Piotrus, Emax i kilka jeszcze innych osób zrobiło już naprawdę kawał dobrej roboty wokół szlachty i Polskiej heraldyki. Na pewno znajdziesz coś dla siebie.

Aha, jeszcze jedna uwaga natury technicznej: linki zewnętrzne (External links), te wstawiane za pomocą jednego nawiasu, wstawia się bez pionowej kreski. To znaczy [http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mdemkowicz1/dobra/poloniz.html The Polonization of the Ukrainian Nobility], a nie [http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mdemkowicz1/dobra/poloniz.html|The Polonization of the Ukrainian Nobility]. Wystarczy spacja, mechanizm wiki sam to rozdzieli.

Pozdrawiam, --Halibutt 23:47, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Jeśli będę mógł w czymś pomóc - daj znać.

Dziekuję za przywitanie! I dziekuję za uwage, przyda się. To fajnie że jest taka fajna mała grupa polaków na angielskim Wiki, podoba mi się. Niestety zdenerwowało mnie troche zachowanie jednego Admina ostatnio, ale co na to można poradzić?

Pozdrawiam, Milicz 02:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Moja żona też ma pochodzenia żydowskie.

[edit] Image Tag

Thanks for uploading Image:Celestyn Bialynia Cholodecki.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{gfdl}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}}. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks so much, Superm401 | Talk 22:53, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nesvizh Castle

I recently created Niasvizh Castle. You are welcome to edit. The article needs pictures, ghost stories, and stories about the treasures buried in its vaults. :) --Ghirlandajo 22:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] meta-puppet

A meta-puppet is not a sockpuppet. meta-puppetry is when someone gets external, non-Wikipedia users to vote on a VfD or similar. And this is clearly whats happening here, with huge numbers of forum members coming in to vote. --Kiand 19:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Who came up with that term? I have never heard anyone use it, it makes no sense when applied to Wikipedia, anyone who uses Wikipedia even once is a user.--Milicz 21:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Its on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet or a similar policy document, and has been for quite some time. --Kiand 22:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the term you are referring to is Meatpuppets and not meta-puppet.

[edit] Radio Maryja POV

Youre mixing freedom of speech with systematic policy. But I will look for arbitration on this issue as to not break the 3RR. The current version of the article is slanted. And please refrain from personal attacks and bad faith. Ksenon 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Radio Maryja

I have just blocked you (and your opponent) for 24 hours for violating Wikipedia's rule against reverting an article more than three times in a 24 hour period, which you can review here. Edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia -- please use this time to think of ways you can come to an agreement when the block expires. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To bad you didn't notice that I actually added new sections to the article instead of just reverting, check the history and compare.--Milicz 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A revert is defined as undoing the work of another editor. That you added something else on top of it doesn't make it less of a revert. Take some time off to cool down and come back rededicated to finding a compromise. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the point, he didn't DO any work, he has reverted every authors work to his own, just look at the history. I on the other hand included his work in the Counter-criticism section. I've asked for the page to be protected because those that worked on the current version just gave up and left because compromise was impossible. --Milicz 16:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Milicz. I'm sympathetic to your situation. I noted that one of the things Ksenon has been reverting is "controversial" as a descriptor for the radio station -- however, edit warring is harmful, even if you're in the right. A quick Google search for the station (I know nothing about it) reveals that it's quite clearly controversial, so as I said, I'm sympathetic. Anyway, you two probably need some help in resolving your dispute. Have you considered asking for mediation? You can find out more here at dispute resolution and requests for mediation. You might also like to place a note at requests for comment, where you may attract more editors to the page to help build consensus. In the meantime, I've also asked another Wikipedian I trust who is familiar with Catholic church issues to take a look at the article. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The radio draws criticism, but to introduce the station as controversial right up front would require a new policy where any concept or entity that draws any criticism (99.9% of articles out there), big or small, to be labelled as such. All criticisms are included in the article. Milicz is basically trying to shift the delicate NPOV balance towards the controversial side, totally ignoring the radio's real message and, perhaps unknowingly, participating in a smear campaign against the station. Ksenon 06:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hej

Jeśli możesz spójrz czasem na http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board Im więcej osób zainteresowany poprawianiem i edycją artykułów związanych z Polakami i Polską tym lepiej. Pozdrawiam. --Molobo 01:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Masz racje, tak zrobie. Pozdrawiam--Milicz 02:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Fasten 09:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reality

laying it on a little thick there, eh?

He couldn't have phrased it better himself;)

Please stop. Your edit is not helping the article. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, and your edits aren't nearly as funny as you think they are. - Taxman ^Talk 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I always knew taxmen had no sense of humor.--Milicz 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We're born that way. :) No seriously, there's just plenty of things out there to have fun with, vandalizing Wikipedia isn't a good choice. Have fun while improving it, not holding it back. - Taxman ^Talk 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Colbert Report link

Thank you very much for adding my site back on "The Colbert Report" page! I won't dispute its inclusion any more in the Talk section of "The Colbert Report" page, because technically the page is more relevant to the main "Stephen Colbert" page as I discuss all of Colbert's career and not simply his current show. A link has been allowed to remain on the "Stephen Colbert" page, where I strongly believe it belongs at the very least, and I'm very happy with that.

However, I would prefer it if you would edit the link to refer to my web site as a Colbert-themed site or Colbert-centric site as opposed to simply "Colbert blog". I do not want people misled to think that my blog is a site written by Colbert or officially sanctioned by him.

Thank you again for the change! It truly means a lot to me that other people appreciate my site. Nofactzone 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Milicz! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Rydzyna Coat of Arms.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Andrzej Niedzielan celebrating after goal.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Andrzej Niedzielan celebrating after goal.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)