Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:12, 13 April 2008

Tulkolahten is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages or maybe not

Read Signpost Archive

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Re

Nemam poneti. Viditelne jsou vsichni unaveni temi nekonecnymi putkami. - Darwinek (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I Corps (Czechoslovakia)

Sorry its such a small article, but its a start ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye

Unfortunately I've decided to retire for indefinite. Please don't write anything on my page now. I may only wish you the best of the luck. MarkBA 20:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AE

FYI, I am starting to look into the AE complaint. I haven't gotten very far into it yet, but just to start with, I would like to advise you to stop using the word "vandalism" in referring to other editors' contributions, unless you are dealing with real vandalism. "Real" vandalism is things like blanking a page and replacing it with a picture of someone's genitals; or changing a birth year to something in a different century, or wiping out a paragraph and replacing it with "HA HA U R DUMB." That's vandalism.  :) Simply disagreeing about content though, is not vandalism. And calling it vandalism can actually escalate a dispute. So I recommend that you stop this practice right away.

Stay tuned for more as I dig deeper into it... --Elonka 06:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, as I look through this, it does appear that whatever Matthead was doing on March 23, that you were just following along behind him reverting all the way, but you never actually stopped to talk to him about it. I see no message from you to his talkpage, or any other talkpages about it. Or am I missing something? --Elonka 08:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but that was days before you started reverting him. --Elonka 09:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at your message to Matthead. It's a start, but it's a bit accusatory. Could you try again? Think of it this way: Instead of seeing him as the enemy, imagine that he were someone that were an authority figure. One possible technique which might get you in the right frame of mind, is to pretend that you are talking to a retired professor, who used to be quite competent, but has gotten a bit confused as they got older. I'm not saying that this applies to Matthead, but if you imagine that you're talking to someone who you used to respect, I think it will change the tone of what you say. Another thing to try, is that you could ask another editor that you both seem to respect, and see if they have advice on how the two of you can work things out? I just want to see you make a truly genuine effort to reach out. But your current post isn't quite there yet. --Elonka 13:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(reply) Content. See WP:VANDAL. --Elonka 13:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel that I was somehow pre-disposed to be biased against you for some reason? I assure you that that's not the case, but if you do feel that I was biased, what are you basing this on? --Elonka 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You were edit-warring at Charles University in Prague, and I see no attempt by you to discuss things at talk. If the discussion took place elsewhere, please supply diffs, thanks. --Elonka 02:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Tulkolahten, after having reviewed the previous cautions in your talkpage edit history, and the complaint at WP:AE#User:Tulkolahten, I have to agree that some of your recent behavior has been of concern, specifically in the way that you have been using the word "vandalism" or "nonsense" to describe other edits, despite multiple complaints from other editors. I am also concerned how you seem to be following the edits of Matthead (talk · contribs) and reverting him without genuine attempts at discussion.

I am therefore adding your name to the list of editors who are under General Editing restrictions, as defined at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction, specifically:

Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked ... for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth.

And I'd like to be very specific here: As part of the above restrictions, if you continue with referring to other editors' reasonable changes as "vandalism" either by calling it that directly or using an acronym such as "rvv", you may be subject to having your account blocked. This means don't use words such as "vandalism" "rvv" "nonsense" or other such pejorative terms in edit summaries or talkpage posts.

Please let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 11:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak, "maybe not"

Don't be ridiculous, I've seen good editors go because of content disputes, in fact you're the fourth person I'm convincing to stay this month. Come on! Who's gonna make sure Misplaced Pages covers the Czech Republic properly? Huh? The Dominator (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I really really hope you will return soon. It seems Misplaced Pages is losing good editors fast these days and those few people here, who are interested in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, can hardly maintain the existing articles. You have done a very good job and I wish you many more great edits. Please, reconsider the length of your wikibreak and come back soon. Tankred (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I will make some minor edits maybe, but I definitely need some rest. I understand why MarkBA left Misplaced Pages ... ≈Tulkolahten≈ 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming debate at Sněžka-Śnieżka

As a participant in the last, unsuccessful bid to change the name of this article, you should be advised of a new debate to move the article about Sněžka-Śnieżka. Your views on the current proposal would be especially welcome. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming disputes, civility, etc.

Hi Tulkolahten,

Been a busy work day and haven't been able to get back to you until now. I've looked at the various edit summaries and conversations as you asked, and I really don't see any "actionable" incivility by anyone. It's easy to overreact when you are in the middle of a conflict; reverts feel like slaps in the face, even though in the big scheme of things they're very small stuff. My advice, as I may have mentioned before, is just to get up and do something else for a while when Misplaced Pages starts to stress you out. There is an interesting suggestion on the talk page of the article in question about the specific meaning of "falsify" which you might read; are you a native English speaker? there's a subtle shade of meaning you might be missing. Saying "falsification" isn't quite as bad a thing as you may imagine. In my opinion.

Regarding the issue of naming places in disputed territories, -- this has a long and contentious history on Misplaced Pages, as I'm sure you know. Have you ever looked at the history of the conflict over the naming of Gdańsk? You might look at some of the suggestions, comments, and ideas on Talk:Gdansk/Vote, where the decisions were hashed out on how to handle naming the place in biographies and such; that might give you some useful ideas on how to compromise when similar things come up elsewhere (e.g. Pressburg/Bratislava, where some of my own ancestors are from). For example, if the city is named in the biography of someone Slovak, Bratislava would probably be the preferred spelling for some periods of history; if named in the biography of a non-Slovak, maybe Pressburg would be better. Reference the Gdańsk decision in your comments as a precedent. Precedent is weighty around here, any time it has a potential for helping in conflict resolution.

Good luck with this all ... happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ľudovít Štúr Discussion

FYI - I put a little note about this at Talk:Ľudovít Štúr#Falsification. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hungarian counties

Since you're also involved in the Hungarian counties reverting circus, see the discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary#Disputed edits in articles about counties. Markussep 13:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I am not seeing uncivil edit summaries from you; however I am concerned that both you and the other editor seem to be disagreeing solely in edit summaries, without participating at talk. To be clear: Whenever you make a controversial edit or revert on an article, you must give an explanation at talk. If there's no ongoing thread, start a new one. --Elonka 03:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)