Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Space Cadet (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 8 February 2007 (→re:jadger). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1

Thanks

Thanks for the Christmas wishes, and Happy New Year to you ! --Lysy 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bayern/Urawa

Actually, "don't delete information unless you can prove it is wrong" is exactly opposite of the Misplaced Pages policy, (see #2 and #3 at the top of WP:V). Had it been cited correctly, or even mentioned on the FC Bayern Munich article, it would not have been deleted. Thanks for adding the citation. Neier 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Jan Dzierżon

... I can't believe this, it was you who cast accusations of revisionim (not toward me yet)? LOL. Observe poor logic of your answer. I did not claim he was Polish, did I (in that case your message and Kaliningrad example could be relevant). Actually, I have more complex views. I indicated that Poles did consider him Polish (as you looked like ingnorant to that). And let me rephrase your post in my talk that basically says Poles (or commies) considered him Pole because he was famous. Terrible as argument.

As for Dzierzon, you may want to realize his self-identification. If this discussion really concerns him and you have some constructive input, let's move to the relevant talk page. Otherwise EOT. --Beaumont (@) 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

response to FYI

Frankly, I'm rather disgusted with what's going on at Dzierzon's article. He was a good example of how for many people ethnic origin was not the most important thing, and that being a Poles and Germans could collaborate instead of fighting each other. And now we have the (mostly anonymous) warriors, trying to push that he was German or Polish. How counter-productive and counter-factual. --Lysy 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish anon users were banned from editing articles. This one is particularly frustrating, not only because of the idle debate, but also because it could be such a positive example, that's been turned into a silly warzone instead. What I (and I think you too) am trying to do is to guard the consensus version, but I can see how unstable it is. --Lysy 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The same for the Recovered Territories. While I'm aware it's far from perfect, I don't want to see it made any worse than it is now, either way. --Lysy 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus

This article has been receiving a lot of hits today. I am having problems keeping up with it because many of my other articles are also getting hit. I know that basics about Nicolaus Copernicus but not enough to fully proof the article. One IP broke a lot of the links by inserting extra brackets. Looks like your last edit cleaned some. Ronbo76 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you look at my talkpage, it appears a user who disagreed with one of my reverse edits, may be using multiple IPs or has a sockpuppet. It is the last item called "Link on Copernicus". One person signed it, Andrew, and the other is by an anonymous unsigned IP that I did not leave a citation on. Ronbo76 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a new user, user:Arudra, has begun edits to this article. He is reversing some edits. Ronbo76 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

re: vandal

I looked at it, and he's been blocked by another admin already. Let me know if you need any help in the future. That Nazi/"you will be watched" summary would have gotten an immediate block from me. Cheers, Fang Aili 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I took another look -- everyone you listed except 131.104.218.46 has been blocked. I can keep an eye on that IP address. FYI, I can't do a Checkuser on logged-in people; only a few people have access to that. (I'm not sure how people could have such disparate IP addresses as 131 and 207, but then again, I'm no expert.) I'll keep an eye on Copernicus as well. --Fang Aili 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule

Hi there! I am going to make a nice, friendly request that you stay away from Copernicus and anything that vandal touches for a while. No offense intended, you seem to have decided to stayed away from it already but you exceeded 3 reverts on most of the pages. Just wanted to warn you that anymore reverts and you face a possibility of being blocked. Cheers, Philip Gronowski 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

I noticed you were reverting added tags {{POV-check}} and {{unreferenced|date=December 2006}} by 207.245.84.70. Although I understand why you did it just take care someone may think you're a vandal, because this is not a vandalism - any editor can express feelings that page needs POV-check and that is unreferenced. Happy editing. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 09:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I created you the userbox This user is interested in Central Europe history hope you'll enjoy it. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I recreated it to be more unique {{user Central Europe}}

This user is interested in Central European history.

≈Tulkolahten≈ 18:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the celtic cross is the best one - neutral and catches whole central europe. See celtic tribes in central europe Image:Celts_800-400BC.PNG green area is tribes around 1000 B.C. It's hard to find something purely related to the central europe region. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can think that celtic cross is a neo-nazi symbol, afaik they use svástika and cross must be equilateral. But I changed it to Jan Hus picture, good idea. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:LUCPOL

I just want to ask you if you would be willing to help me stop User:LUCPOLs wikipedia propagandist and compulsive lieing spree, ive made a report but im not yet finished....here it is User:R9tgokunks\User:LUCPOL-- Hrödberäht 06:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Hi, please don't get me wrong, but I think you might appreciate the notice that this edit is on a verge of personal attack. Or it's unnecessarily aggressive and rude at least. I'm sure you will know it's not my intention to patronize you, but maybe such tone would be better avoided in discussing the already very delicate topic. Cheers. --Lysy 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm fine with that but the aggressive tone might aggravate others if this escalates and we would not want another trench war there, would we. I just wanted to make sure you're aware of this. Just consider this a friendly remark, nothing more. Thanks. --Lysy 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Prussia

I think you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Prussia, if you aren't already a patron. -- Hrödberäht 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

IP templates

When listing user IPs, the following two templates can be useful: Template:IPUser and Template:User5. For IP "86.27.64.149", which was recently listed on WP:AN3RR, the templates would list:

• 86.27.64.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.27.64.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

FYI, Olessi 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. IMO, you should tone down your criticism of Tulkolahten at the expulsions page (as he should of you). Rhetoric and personal attacks by either side aren't going to help the situation, but will only make things matters worse. Olessi 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Draft

User:Jadger/draft_expulsions

--Jadger 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jadger/Expulsion

Thanks for the note. I'm travelling, and accessing the net with my mobile, so my activity is quite limited for the next couple of days still. --Lysy 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

re: your message

I apologize, but I have a lot going on IRL and do not have the energy to get involved in a dispute right now. I suggest you post to an appropriate subpage of WP:AN and someone there will help you. Thanks and good luck, Fang Aili 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I did not offend you. In at least two cases you have removed a valid reference and then some more text - claiming it's unreferenced. Well, if it wasn't for your actions the remarks would've been referenced, just like they were before. So, in other words, your actions perfectly fit the definition of vandalism. Whether you feel offended by the word or not is really not of my business, is it. However, if you're not offended by your actions, how come you feel offended when someone calls them by their name?

Anyway, I saw your recent counter-productive spree and I'd like to point out that I did not revert all of your changes. In situations where you did any (I mean any) improvement of the earlier version along with promotion of the other name, I left them as they were. However, in situations where you simply changed a word or two just for the sake of it, I reverted to the stable version. //Halibutt 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

re:jadger

please, I would like to ask you to stop personally attacking me, as calling my edits "vandalism" does. I am also curious as to what in them constitutes vandalism? is it the removal of POV? or using the same name for an article as the article is titled? or maybe it is the removal of false citations in non-english languages that are represented to say something that they in reality do not?

--Jadger 03:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no - it's more about INSERTING biased POV, false claims, admiration for the FRITZ and his passed away since XIX century state, which shows in ALL your edits, destructive actions whose only purpose is to create chaos, your edit wars, your playing dumb or ignorant (which we both know you're not) whenever convenient etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Happy Valentine's Day! Space Cadet 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)