User talk:Milicz

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

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, --Halibu tt 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.

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

Fasten 09:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

Edward Moskal

Hello. I have looked over the Edward Moskal article, and it needs a great deal of work. Much of the information in the article, while I have no dispute about its correctness, is lacking in wp:RS. It has been flagged as requiring sources since 2007. Further some, however accurate, is given with one or another specific Point of View, violating wp:NPOV. Finally, there are statements in the article which conflict with some of the wp:RS that I do see out there. This makes sense, since some of them conflict with one another, and this was clearly a controversial figure.

While I am sympathetic to your concern that the large-scale deletions will result in "white-washing" this individual, the content needs to be either sourced or omitted. If there is a particular portion you would like to see remain, and you note it on the Talk page, I will see if I can source it for youk, if you simply cannot or will not do it yourself.

In any event, over a year is long enough for interested editors, if any, to source the article, and I am re-applying the deletions in about a week, unless the article is improved.sinneed (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations at Edward Moskal

I have updated your citations into the most basic form. I ask, though it is just a request, that you use at least the basic citation format for citations.

I do note that at least one of them, attached to

Moskal never apologized for his statements and refused to be labeled an anti-Semite. However, Kaszak distanced herself from Moskal. Emanuel won the nomination 51%-39% due to outrage from Moskal's comment, and went on to win the general election.

is cited to: http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/emanuels_impact_20030110/

and the related content seems to begin "A nasty primary battle..." and run through "our heritage."

Is there another portion of the article which relates to the statements to which it is attached? If not, then please either rephrase the section being supported by the citation to match what it says, or remove the citation. It is very important not to attach a citation to something it does not support... as it violates the trust of the reader, the other editors, and the Wikipedia community.

sinneed (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chołodecki family

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Notable_.3F_Polish_families.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

) Thank you for your part, as well. I have enjoyed learning about the land, people, and events, and am glad you feel my edits have contributed. All the best. :)sinneed (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radwan deletion

Hello -- on the Radwan deletion -- the point I was trying to make within the deletion debate was this article was originally found notable, then it was found not notable, and in the future it might yet again be found notable. I find it somewhat ludicrous, and I'm in agreement with moving more towards inclusion rather than exclusion. The entire debate had an underlying tone of supplication to particular editors' self-appointed personal fiefs. - Exxess (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Milicz. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<.

Ikip (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_szlachta#Purpose_of_the_list_and_criteria_for_inclusion

Replies waiting for your input.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dołęga-Zaleski and Dołęga-Mycielski

Do you have any opinion on this? Power.corrupts (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Trembowla01.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Trembowla01.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Masur (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Celestyn Bialynia Cholodecki.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Celestyn Bialynia Cholodecki.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montrose Beach Patio Deck 2452.jpg copyright issue

You forgot to add a copyright tag to File:Montrose Beach Patio Deck 2452.jpg that you uploaded recently. Images without a copyright will be deleted, so please add the appropriate one. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The licence you added is inappropriate. Please add an appropriate licence from here. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate as a free license, I got it from the page you directed me to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/Free_licenses --Milicz (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cholodeccy cover.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Cholodeccy cover.jpg is missing information as to its authorship (and or source) , or if such information is provided it is confusing.

Although images may not need author information in un-controversial cases, or where an applicable source is provided, such information aids those making use of the image, and helps verify the copyright status of an image.

If possible, please consider updating the media information page to make the authorship (and or source) of this media clearer.

If the media is your own work, please consider explicitly including your user name or using the {{own}} template on the media information page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bialyni Cholodecki Book cover.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Bialyni Cholodecki Book cover.jpg is missing information as to its authorship (and or source) , or if such information is provided it is confusing.

Although images may not need author information in un-controversial cases, or where an applicable source is provided, such information aids those making use of the image, and helps verify the copyright status of an image.

If possible, please consider updating the media information page to make the authorship (and or source) of this media clearer.

If the media is your own work, please consider explicitly including your user name or using the {{own}} template on the media information page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cholodziec old.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Cholodziec old.jpg is missing information as to its authorship (and or source) , or if such information is provided it is confusing.

Although images may not need author information in un-controversial cases, or where an applicable source is provided, such information aids those making use of the image, and helps verify the copyright status of an image.

If possible, please consider updating the media information page to make the authorship (and or source) of this media clearer.

If the media is your own work, please consider explicitly including your user name or using the {{own}} template on the media information page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Bialyni Cholodecki Book cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bialyni Cholodecki Book cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Jozef Bialynia.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jozef Bialynia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree File:Bialyni Cholodecki Book cover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bialyni Cholodecki Book cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

File:Rydzyna Coat of Arms.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rydzyna Coat of Arms.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sebastian Mila Slask.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Sebastian Mila Slask.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 08:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Cerkiew in Ukraine.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]