Revision as of 17:13, 27 April 2007 editPoeticbent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers29,717 edits Anon vandal← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:17, 28 April 2007 edit undoIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits 3RR violation at Institute of National RemembranceNext edit → | ||
Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
If he returns, I will block him for disruption.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | If he returns, I will block him for disruption.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
::It's not going to be easy I'm afraid. The anon, who's using a ] number (see: ]) has been vandalizing the ] quite regularly. Just keep an eye on it like I do, that's all. --] ] 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | ::It's not going to be easy I'm afraid. The anon, who's using a ] number (see: ]) has been vandalizing the ] quite regularly. Just keep an eye on it like I do, that's all. --] ] 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
==Revert warring== | |||
Piotrus, you violated the 3RR in the IPN article. Times below are in GMT: | |||
* you reverted the tag placed by another editor | |||
* you reinserted the (irrelevant) information about the lustration laws in other countries (which has no relevance to IPN) | |||
* was a full revert | |||
* was a full revert as well, only 21 hours after the first one. | |||
Please self-revert. Until recently, I would have never contacted you in connection with this or considered posting this to 3RR board but I can't help but make a connection between your act of joining the #admins that we used to criticized together and rather unexpected showing up of a know IRC member bashing me at your ArbCom. I consider resorting to this tactic beyond limit. Anyway, irregardless of whether you want to explain the connection between these two events, please self-revert your 3RR violation. Thanks, --] 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:17, 28 April 2007
File:WikipediaSignpost icon.png You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Misplaced Pages Signpost today. |
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Piotrus/Archive 15. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you. |
---|
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance. |
---|
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance. |
---|
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you. |
---|
Talk archives: Archive 1 (moved Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (moved Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (moved May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (moved July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (moved September 27, 2005), Archive 6 (moved November 23, 2005), Archive 7 (moved January 7, 2006), Archive 8 (moved 19 March, 2006), Archive 9 (moved 6 May, 2006), Archive 10 (moved 17 June, 2006), Archive 11 (moved 28 July, 2006), Archive 12 (moved 25 September, 2006), Archive 13 (moved 28 October, 2006), Archive 14 (moved 27 December, 2006), Archive 15 (moved 4 February, 2007), Archive 16 (moved 20 March, 2007)
If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that I will either:
at my discretion
ArbCom/PiotrusYour behavior will be scrutinized here: M.K. 10:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Polish translation of edit summaryHi there... I am wondering, as someone who indcates they can translate polish, could you review the following edit summary for this diff and let me know it's general content. Based on the topic and the fact the edit reversed my editing, I believe it is likely in polish and directed at me. It is unlikely I will report it or anything, but it is always nice to know if someone is slamming you. Thanks.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 12:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/PoliciesYour latest proposal seems to have broken ilink...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
koloman göghyou are invited to improve article, thanks --Mt7 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC) what you say is humbug, no one is czechoslovak player Ján Čapkovič, Antonín Panenka, Ladislav Jurkemik,Ivo Knoflíček, František Plánička, Ján Švehlík, Josef Masopust, Alexander Vencel (born 1944), Ivo Viktor, we need a new wikipedia for you. --Mt7 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC) WikiProjectThanks for the link. I will take a look. How did you know about my interest in this sort of stuff? --HappyCamper 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Prodding List of... articleI do not think that you should be prodding List of... articles as you currently are doing. You tried to mass AfD them, and that did not work; nor was there consensus that it was a good idea. Nowhere have I seen evidence of consensus being reached that the deletion is a good thing. I think you should seek to get some consensus before engaging in this exercise. At the moment it appears to be your personal opinion that there's something wrong with these articles; you look like you're rampaging through Misplaced Pages without giving a second thought to other people's opinion.--Tagishsimon (talk)
The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd ClassThank you, Piotr. I appreciate it very much. I'm moving the awards to my userpage. Thanks a million. --Poeticbent talk 22:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC) You are welcomeBut - remember, every rose has thorns :) The more active you are, the more effort you put in - the more enemies you make... there are days I wonder if it is worth it, really... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration statement lengthPlease note that an arbitrator has requested that you reduce the length of your statement on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) DYK
Reification (fallacy)Thanks for the article, Piotrus. How does one generate the kind of notice that I received from you the next time a user accesses en.Misplaced Pages? Two comments on the article: Your subheading "Ethymology" is not as familiar as the equivalent "Etymology" – the former redirects to the latter in en.Misplaced Pages. Also, in the "Theory" section you write "A reification circle refers to the event when a norm, first seen as artificial and forces,...." It makes sense to me if "forces" should be "forced" but perhaps you had something else in mind that I'm not getting. I'll duplicate these comments on the Reification (fallacy) talk page if you want to discuss. —Blanchette 06:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC) a recent {{prod}}I left a message for you here. I can see your point about not keeping redundant information, as the two locations can get out of sync, causing confusion. But, if the out-of-date, and possibly redundant info hasn't been checked, before the article is removed, it is lost. And I think that should be checked first. Probably a lot of work to do a proper job of it. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 15:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC) LWD Szpak
Your arbcom commentThanks for your comment wrt the Romania case. You wrote:
Maybe I am suffering from certain delusions, but may be I am correct on who you mean by "certain users". In this case, please reread the Latvia case, note the list of users ArbCom found engaged in "poor behavior", reread the talk of the Romania article find those engaged in poor behavior there as well and compare the list. I am writing to you off the arbcom page because the page is already loaded, but I welcome your continued scrutiny. In fact, from the pattern of your edits that show up in certain articles I am aware of being under the radar and it does not bother me. So, I would be interested in your more detailed analysis rather than a totally unsupported statement. --Irpen 05:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Leaving my comments in the air with lost contextWhen you remove or significantly alter your comments to which I already replied, my comments start to look irrelevant at worst or strange and mysterious at best. Please post your new thoughts below (rather than in place) of old thoughts so that I know what I should be replying to and the reader may follow the discussion. TIA, --Irpen 05:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 3O ToTI am removing Misplaced Pages:Third opinion Time of Troublesrequest because you did not include the section on the talk page it related to and there seem to be more than two people involved now. If I am mistaken please resubmit. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Polish CommunesHi. You are an admin here, so I'd like to ask you for something. After my talk with User:Marcin Suwalczan, we agreed to keep standard of "Name Commune", not "Gmina Name". But I was move few articles before: Gmina Abramów; Gmina Adamów, Łuków County; Gmina Adamów, Zamość County; Gmina Adamówka, Gmina Aleksandrów, Biłgoraj County; Gmina Aleksandrów, Piotrków Trybunalski County; Gmina Aleksandrów Kujawski and Gmina Aleksandrów Łódzki, all of them should be moved back. And, as You know, it is not possible without deletion of redirect pages. Sorry for this perturbation. Regards Lajsikonik 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC) User:87.187.170.182(talk)We have a new anon on a destructive spree. Can you take care of this? Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC) IRCOkay, you're added. You may have to type /msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins before joining. --Interiot 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Reification (fallacy)
Nie movie po polsku......but you do, of course. Can you leave a note for Commons:User:Ocuish? He or she is uploading images to Commons, but in the process expanding .jpg to .jpeg. That just means work for nothing at our end. Example: Image:Airport Terminal.jpg went to Commons:Image:Airport Terminal.jpeg. It could be that they were called .jpeg on the Polish wiki, but maybe you could ask him/her if there is a reason for it. Many thanks in advance for your multilingual assistance! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC) WP:NCGNHi Piotrus, I am sorry to disturb you with this, but I would greatly appreciate if you can look at the edits (well, in fact just reverts) by User:Odbhss. He is reverting to a version contradicting WP:NCGN. I have tried to explain him/her the convention on his/her talk page, but to no avail. He/she has a clear POV, but I believe we should play by rules regardless our POV. What should I do? I have discussed WP:NCGN with other Hungarian editors on their notice board and, although one of them opposes the convention in general, the rest seem to accept it. Communication with Odbhss is kind of... not extremely fruitful. See User talk:Odbhss. I would be grateful for any help. Tankred 02:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sarkar's Social Cycle TheoryHi, Your claim that Sarkar's Social Cycle Theory is a hoax or to tie its legitimacy with number of Google hits is amuzing. Please refer to the page were you deposited the claim. Here is the reply. Please consider resolving this issue before other measures need to be taken with regard to the offending entry. Answer on the P. R. Sarkar talk page: "This is incorrect. There are plenty of hits of Sarkar's "social cycle theory" relating to Sarkar. Try the follwing search string "social cycle theory" & "sarkar". Please note "Sarker" is an incorrect spelling of Sarkar. In the Talk page of the present "Social cycle theory" the following was written: Wrong title for this article. The term Social Cycle Theory was first used in relation to The Law of the Social Cycle invented by P.R. Sarkar in his book Human Society, Vol. 2 published by Ananda Marga Press in Calcutta, India in the late 1950s. The term 'Social Cycle Theory' became popularised as the term for this law in other works in India and later in the West, including in the #1 New York Times best seller The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra published by Simon and Schuster in 1987. The SCT term was earlier introduced by Batra in his less well known book The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism: a New Study of History, published by MacMillan in 1976. The use of this term as a description of this article is therefore wrong and likely illegal. The term Sociological Cycle Theory could be used for this entry. The issue concerns the right to the use of this title. It has been used in copyrighted works for many decades. The use of this name for other theories is not as per academic standard and should be discontinued. Please do the honorable thing and make the change in the title of the offending page, as earlier suggested, and then this mess can be cleared up. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar" Budfin 10:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Puppetry!?!Sorry for any confusion. I've replied here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Institute_of_National_Remembrance#Any__Piotru.C5.9B.27_puppets_here.3F and taken the liberty of correcting a (presumed) typographical error in your reply. I admire your contributions. ...Gaimhreadhan • 10:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Institute of National Remembrance
Anon vandalIf he returns, I will block him for disruption.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Revert warringPiotrus, you violated the 3RR in the IPN article. Times below are in GMT:
Please self-revert. Until recently, I would have never contacted you in connection with this or considered posting this to 3RR board but I can't help but make a connection between your act of joining the #admins that we used to criticized together and this rather unexpected showing up of a know IRC member bashing me at your ArbCom. I consider resorting to this tactic beyond limit. Anyway, irregardless of whether you want to explain the connection between these two events, please self-revert your 3RR violation. Thanks, --Irpen 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |