Misplaced Pages

Archive 1 (created Jan 17, 2005), Archive 2 (created Feb 21, 2005), Archive 3 (created May 19, 2005), Archive 4 (created July 14, 2005), Archive 5 (created September 27, 2005), Archive 6 (created November 23, 2005), Archive 7 (created January 7, 2006), Archive 8 (created 19 March, 2006), Archive 9 (created 6 May, 2006), Archive 10 (created 17 June, 2006), Archive 11 (created 28 July, 2006), Archive 12 (created 25 September, 2006), Archive 13 (created 28 October, 2006), Archive 14 (created 27 December, 2006), Archive 15 (created 4 February, 2007), Archive 16 created 20 March, 2007), Archive 17 (created 17 May, 2007), Archive 18 (created 30 July, 2007), Archive 19 (created 25 September, 2007), Archive 20 (created 5 November, 2007), Archive 21 (created 2 January, 2008), Archive 22 (created 19 February, 2008), Archive 23 (created 8 April, 2008), Archive 24 (created 15 May, 2008), Archive 25 (created 8 July, 2008), Archive 26 (created 5 October, 2008), Archive 27 (created 4 January, 2009), Archive 28 (created 19 March, 2009), Archive 29 (created 12 May, 2009), Archive 30 (created 20 July, 2009), Archive 31 (created 11 October, 2009), Archive 32 (created 1 December, 2009), Archive 33 (created 25 March, 2010), Archive 34 (created 29 July, 2010), Archive 35 (created 1 November, 2010), Archive 36 (created 24 January, 2011), Archive 37 (created 12 May, 2011), Archive 38 (created 28 September, 2011), Archive 39 (created 16 November, 2011), Archive 40 (created 12 February, 2012), Archive 41 (created 23 April, 2012), Archive 42 (created 7 July, 2012), Archive 43 (created 27 September, 2012), Archive 44 (created 8 February, 2013), Archive 45 (created 21 April, 2013), Archive 46 (created 13 June, 2013), Archive 47 (created 26 September, 2013), Archive 48 (created 27 December, 2013), Archive 49 (created 20 March, 2014), Archive 50 (created 8 June, 2014), Archive 51 (created 2 September, 2014), Archive 52 (created 24 November, 2014), Archive 53 (created 20 April, 2015), Archive 54 (created 21 September, 2015), Archive 55 (created 4 March, 2016), Archive 56 (created 25 August, 2016), Archive 57 (created 22 December, 2016), Archive 58 (created 1 May, 2017), Archive 59 (created 1 March, 2018), Archive 60 (created 10 July, 2018), Archive 61 (created 6 March, 2019), Archive 62 (created 13 November, 2019), Archive 63 (created 23 March, 2020), Archive 64 (created 1 September, 2020), Archive 65 (created 13 February, 2021) add new archive

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69

Current RfAdminship

Mediation

Mediation Request Notification Hi Piotrus , A request for mediation was filed in regards to the article History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland. You have been listed as an involved party and I would like it if you would participate in our discussion. The goal of Mediation is to find a way to resolve issues such as content disputes. You can find the mediation page here. If you would like to participate please go to that page and state your acceptance and you views about the request. Thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk)

Piłsudski

I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about Piłsudski and I'm afraid I wouldn't be of much help. — ] (] · ]) 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren  21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kokenhausen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

"Consensus" on quotes

Can yuo please show me where there was a consensus on quotes, and how that justifies you rewriting a section in a way that doesn't conform to what the sources say? Boodlesthecat 21:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your latest version is a bit of a synthesis but can be accepted as a compromise. However, please discuss new issues as they arise on their merits, without resort to claims of past consensuses, featured article status and the like. Boodlesthecat 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Forgot

Apologise, I have forgotten indeed, Lithuanian–Soviet War and Sejny Uprising have now completed B-checklist. Thanks for reminding me and all the best, Eurocopter (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:"Own"

It might be a good idea to refrain from disingenuous edit-summaries at the moment. Anyway, I have content issues with your reverts, which I've explained on talk quite fully; and you haven't commented on them. Don't you see why if you don't address my own content concerns your reverts aren't going to get anywhere? Reverting and edit-warring isn't how you'll make my concerns disappear, Piotrus, it never has been ... :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the original ref was presented as if it came from a historical source. But if you're gonna use a made-up number (which is what it is), you'll have to explain why the cited author thinks that figure range likely to be accurate. After all, you are inserting it in the lead template as if it were a fact, which of course it isn't. Jaworski is not a prominent historian of medieval Rus, so his claims won't get enough attention to be disputed by historians of the topic. More generally, because he (supposedly) wrote that in the Polish language, it won't be subject to any meaningful peer review among specialists of medieval Russia. That Svyatopolk's position in the sons list is unclear is demonstrable by reading actual historians of medieval Russia, such as Franklin and Shepard, the refs to which I provided and even went to the trouble to quote. As it is so demonstrably clear, adding this bit could serve nothing more than highlight the mistake of a non-specialist historical writer or give undue weight to a non-mainstream author in the subject area. I mean, does Jaworski just assert this or does he argue it based upon source evidence, and which evidence? You need to at least point this out If the former, then the reference isn't reliable. If the latter, his arguments should be summarised. Duchy of the Poles or Duchy of Poland is btw a more historically authentic way of representing how that lordship was described in contemporary sources. Actually give Thietmar a read and you'd find that out. Regarding the assertions of those "neutral editors", you're both misrepresenting them and pushing a flawed argument, as even if they did what you're asserting (which they didn't), it wouldn't matter because the actual heart of the dispute is being ignored. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to the talk page, where it will be more useful to the community. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

greg park avenue

I strongly recommend you do what you can to cool greg park avenue out. Here he launches yet another Jew-baiting rant on your arbitration page (similar to the one you threatened to block for refactoring in the past). And threatening admins with violence is definitely a no-no. Boodlesthecat 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful as well if you counseled him about threatening editors with violence and about using your Arb for anti-semitic rants. The sock-puppet claims are prima facie nonsense, but the other issues will end badly for him if he persists. Boodlesthecat 13:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Greg has been systematically dismissive and hostile to my suggestions about his behavior--I have left multiple warnings on his page in advance. And I agree, anti-semitism is most definitely not to be taken lightly, which is why I recommend someone who can communicate with him let him know, before he gets banned. Boodlesthecat 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Greg had posted offensive, Jew-baiting comments on WP on multiple occasions, one of which you threatened to block me for removing. He also has a tendency to post belligerent comments, most recently threatening an admin. Boodlesthecat 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, never mind; since you prefer to play 20 questions rather than respond to a courtesy erquest that you intervene with Greg, in the interim he has been strongly instructed to remove his antisemitic comments. Greg has been spewing been this antisemitic garbage for months. At this point, I don't think it has gone unnoticed that you have been effectively empowering him, in no small part by threatening to block me for refactoring one of his earlier Jew-baiting, BLP-violating rants. No matter; at this point, it's high time that Greg's flagrant policy violations and hate rants come to an end. You still have the opportunity to explain to him that there is little future in Misplaced Pages for an editor that does little more than spread incivility and hatred here. Boodlesthecat 03:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to others who have read it, and anti-semitic enough for him to be instructed to remove a similar comment from the Arb page. Boodlesthecat 04:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, at this point, the issue isn;t explaining how its anti-semitic, the issue is making it stop. three months of this garbage is too much. Boodlesthecat 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; you've had three months to make an effort to curb greg's hate postings. Doesn't matter now; I was only asking you as a courtesy as someone close to him. Boodlesthecat 04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The case is made; Greg has been ask to remove his comments on the explicit becuase they were antisemitic. So don't worry about it, it's already taken care of. Boodlesthecat 04:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

On 2 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bezdonys, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Working with Piotrus

Hello! Sorry to bother, but as per your comments on my RfA: we did interact the other week relating to this article: . I respect your opinion and input on Misplaced Pages and I just wanted to alert you to my current endeavour. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXX (August 2008)
Project news The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is underway, to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 14 September! Voting starts at 00:01 (UTC) on 15 September and runs until 23:59 (UTC) on 30 September. A new barnstar specifically encouraging and recognizing excellence in Milhist article creation and development has been introduced. Any editor who has made a significant contribution to three or more Milhist A-Class articles promoted since 1 August 2008 under the new A-Class criteria is eligible. Nominations for the medal should be made here; should list the three A-Class articles for which the medal is sought; and must be subsequently supported by three or more project coordinators, who will be responsible for making the award. Editors may nominate themselves or any other qualifying editor.	Articles of note New featured articles: Domitian HMS Ark Royal (91) John McCain Operation Ke Panzer I Warwick Castle New featured lists: List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients List of USAF Test Pilot School alumni New A-Class articles: Harry Murray Horses in warfare Kaunas Fortress Kiev Expedition (1018) Napoleon I of France Operation Ke Panzer IV SS Dakotan SS Pennsylvanian TAM (tank) United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate‎ USS Mercy (AH-4)
Current proposals and discussions A new discussion about whether Milhist should adopt C-Class is underway. All comments are welcome. The 2008 Tag & Assess Workshop is still open, seeking input on ways to improve the efficiency, user-friendliness and organization of future Milhist drives. All comment is welcome, especially from people who didn't participate in the drive!
Awards and honors Durova has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of her exemplary work on military history featured pictures, sounds, and articles. JonCatalán has been awarded the new Milhist A-Class medal for his work on three newly-promoted tank-related articles: Panzer I, TAM and AMX-30E. The new Milhist A-Class medal also goes to Bellhalla for his three ship-related articles: USS Mercy (AH-4), SS Pennsylvanian and SS Dakotan. The Contest department has completed its seventeenth month of competition, which saw an unprecedented 54 entries. The top scorer this month is Bellhalla with a record 120 points, followed by JonCatalan with 56 points. Abraham, B.S., Cam, Ed!, Woody, David Underdown, Gaia Octavia Agrippa and Kyriakos also fielded entries. Blnguyen remains the overall leader, with 226 points in total. The Chevrons go to Bellhalla and JonCatalan gets the Writer's Barnstar. You are encouraged to submit any articles you are working on as entries. Thanks go to Abraham, B.S., Bedford, Benedict of Constantinople, Borg Sphere, Canglesea, Climie.ca, Dashiellx, Ejosse1, El Greco, Fusionmix, Geoff Plourde, Jim Sweeney, Judgesurreal777, MBK004, Mifter, Parsecboy, Red4tribe, Rosiestep, Suyogaerospace, and TomStar81 for their help with the 2008 Tag & Assess Workshop.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Misplaced Pages:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Misplaced Pages, the 💕". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Misplaced Pages and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold 03:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User space harassment

Please stop NYScholar (talk) from harassing me on my own Talk page. He's placing numerous false and questionable 'warnings' on my page, restoring such comments after I have removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar threats (in rows of two or three), and otherwise trying to display material I find annoying. They are all, without exception, common forms of continual harassment which has been going on for several days. Please consult WP:HUSH for guidelines. Thank you in advance. --Poeticbent talk 04:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page, the talk pages of the images, the frequent reverting of the templates in the image pages, etc. The claims above are false and the "warnings" that Poeticbent immediately deletes have been templates required by the speedy-deletion template; there is no "sockpuppet" issue that I know of; I have no idea what Poeticbent is referring to, unless Poeticbent is editing both using an anonymous IP add. and the registered name (I have no way of knowing; only Poeticbent knows if the two are one and the same or not, and I never said that they were): An anonymous IP user and Poeticbent have been deleting proper templates from images already marked with speedy-deletion templates from an article. The turning this into a "personal" matter is purely the result of violations of WP:AGF by Poeticbent, as illustrated above. These claims are absurd. The important matter is the problems in the images that Poeticbent has uploaded to Misplaced Pages and inserted in the article in question. I leave it to administrators to investigate the problems in the images and have no desire to interact with Poeticbent directly. Violations of WP:3RR are obvious in that user's actions in the image pages and the article the 2 images appear in. I have placed no "false and questionable 'warnings'" on Poeticbent's talk page; each one has been triggered by that user's reverting and deletions of proper templates in the image pages and the image captions. I've said all I have to say about this matter. Only out of courtesy have I posted the proper template warnings on the user's talk page; the templates have been required by the speedy-deletion template; each time the user has deleted them, not commented on the talk page of the images and changed the wording in my speedy-deletion templates to inaccurate versions about the image.

These images are damaging the integrity of the articles in which they appear because they are dubious non-free images that are marked for speedy-deletion. --NYScholar (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I been asked by Piotrus to look at the images in question. Well, we should not be sourcing things to youtube, since anything that is online can be put into a youtube video and things like that. I doubt the person claiming release is the actual copyright holder, so I need to look at the laws in question. User:Zscout370 05:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The copyright holder is still alive, so his still hold copyright on the images. There is no provision on the subject being "under duress" that exempts the copyright. Plus, remove the claim from the youtube uploader from the images, since youtube claims are pretty much petty BS and should be ignored. User:Zscout370 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a comment that appears cognizant of all of the problems in the source used by the uploader in Misplaced Pages. The YouTube video is the source of these images, copied from both YouTube and a blog copying from Misplaced Pages copying from YouTube; the YouTube uploader has not got any authorization or license to post these images/videos on the internet. Totally unreliable and dubious source for an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages. --NYScholar (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And I doubt YouTube is the actual source of the images that appears in our articles now, so whatever the youtube uploader might say, I think we should ignore it. The photographer has been identified and he is still alive, so I have no doubt that these are copyrighted. User:Zscout370 06:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify: "And I doubt YouTube is the actual source of the images that appears in our articles now": on what basis do you "doubt" this? What is the source of the images? (I've given some possibilities earlier--including the Museum/Associated Press in a newspaper article; could you explain? --NYScholar (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The two images posted for review

Please see the images as now posted at WP:FUR. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Items 24 and 25. --NYScholar (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Return

Hi,

An English Misplaced Pages admin of Polish origin returning after a long hiatus would like to lend a helping hand and start editing some Poland-related articles again. Could you please tell me where I should start ?
Regards,
Kpjas (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Legnica

You made some edits to Battle of Legnica. One of the changes was changing:

"then on 3 March then defeated the army of King Boleslav V of Kraków near Kraków;"

to

"then on 3 March then defeated Polish army near Tursk on 13 February;"

The source I used for the former was: Erik Hildinger. "Mongol Invasions: Battle of Liegnitz". TheHistoryNet.com, originally published Military History magazine, June 1997. Accessed September 2, 2008.

Do you have a source for the different statements in your edit? Whose Army was it if you are saying that Hildinger was wrong is saying that it was King Boleslav V of Kraków's army?

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

MedRevise.co.uk

Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active. With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Misplaced Pages, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

eve-wiki

Good to see you do occasionally still make it to eve-wiki... Do you still play? Do you subscribe to the channel? --72.42.38.252 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC) (eve-wiki:Eirik Ratcatcher)

You must be kidding

Sixteen citation tags?? There's a pretty thick line between cooperative editing and harassment, and you have managed to erase it entirely. I understand that because of the negative attention you received for your 3 RR edit warring tactics that you can no longer go that route, but this is just as bad. I have sourced every claim I have ever made on every article we have both edited, yet you seem to throw good faith out the window (as well as simple cooperative etiquette, wherein you could easily look in the refs supplied and find the info you "request") and simply see editing these articles as some sort of petty edit warfare. It's pretty sad. Boodlesthecat 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)