Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:14, 7 June 2012

		The Purple Heart Barnstar
		Za całokształt. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Misplaced Pages email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Utterly

What a mess that Jacurek situation is. I thought it had quieted down some. Pardon me if I was confused: to atone, I made myself read a chapter of Cosmos before going to bed. Drmies (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, well part of the point is that it's not Jacurek to blame here. Anyway, when I first read the comment above for some reason (maybe because I just woke up) I read it as "...if I was confused: to calm down, I made myself read a chapter of Cosmos before going to bed". That woke me up with a "whaa?? But yes, like Piotrus said in the AN/I discussion, this is a really stupid edit war that has been going on for half a decade now.VolunteerMarek 13:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, good morning to you then! I just found out that there's a new (well, 2005) translation of Cosmos, directly from the English. I've ordered it. One of the reviews I added to the article says that the novel "struggles to understand meaningfully a series of events that defy logical association," a comment that may apply to my view of the edit war as well. Have a great day! Drmies (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading Cosmopolitan before bedtime? Well, I suppose one could read the monthly discussion of "what he really wants" for ... relaxation.... ;p

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A dirty mind is a joy forever, P. Orno. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a pity that, in terms of professional consultations, I only consult with geneticists and evolutionary biologists—they have a racket where they can out-doe Freud!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!

The place has been dull.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Dull is good.VolunteerMarek 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good comment at Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army

Given the usual state of these ethnic-conflict articles, I'm glad to see your thorough analysis of some of the roots of this conflict: Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army#Clarify? I have no knowledge of this issue myself, but it's good to see that people are now working with good-quality academic sources and trying to get the details right. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a little old, but thanks.VolunteerMarek 18:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Grochowiska almost B-class

If you could add the requested cite, it would be B-class. Although a better map would be nice, too, per talk comment, it wouldn't be required for B-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Done.VolunteerMarek 20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment about BLue Army would be appreciated here

Here: .Faustian (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Misplaced Pages. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Misplaced Pages community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Misplaced Pages have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Misplaced Pages. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Misplaced Pages Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I got plenty of "inspiring stories"!VolunteerMarek 00:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should make sure that the right people (or indeed the whole world) are inspired. You're not the only person I've seen a slightly incongruous story request land upon today, so maybe we should arrange a joint... event? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got... competition!

Hey VM. It was surely only a matter of time before some budget-priced paid editor started advertising :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Józef Michalik

How are you? I was wondering if you could check this translation, I blank out the Polish wiki text at the bottom so it can be easily checked..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, can you check the translation of his cathedral and castle?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. When you recently edited Józef Michalik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gorzów (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa

Hello, Why you think, that Lithuanian security police fight with Armia Krajowa? That was intelligence unit, whitch had Special Squad (this squad killed people in Paneriai and another places (ghettos, prisons and so on), but never, absolutly never they fight with partisans).

Just Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force fought with Armia Krajowa. Where you see mistake?

I know that you do not like the idea that Poles murdered innocent people as well. (I do not mean the concentration camps and ghettos). The Poles and Lithuanians killed civilians, who did not want to cooperate with them or just had a different nationality.

So I ask what is wrong with the correction?

King regards,

Frankas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankas (talk • contribs) 19:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, the source, Timothy Snyder, specifically mentions Saugumas (Lithuanian police) rather than Lithuanian Defense Force, so we go with what the source says. The second source also references Saugumas. It may very well be true that AK fought against LDF as well (in fact, I'm pretty sure they did), but we need another source for that.

Likewise, the sources given talk about "collaborators", not "civilians". The one exception is of course the Dubinki massacre, itself a retaliatory action - but that's exactly what it is, an exception (as the source clearly states) - whereas the killing of Polish civilians by Saugumas was pretty much routine.VolunteerMarek 23:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The army Krajowa had about 15,000 troops. Vilnius unit of Security police had only 130. http://en.wikipedia.org/Lithuanian_Security_Police Is it this sourse and information acceptable for you? For example, you can read sourse 62 in Armia Krajowa site. However, I agree, if you think that one person can successfully fought against the 100 Polish troops. I know it's politically incorrect, but did you know at least one Krojovos Army attack on the germans in Lithuania (apart from Operation Ostra Brama)? They fought only against lithuanian and soviets (russsian, belorussian and jews partisans) and civilians, who didnt support AK.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankas (talk • contribs)

pl:Okręg_Wilno_AK#Wa.C5.BCniejsze_akcje_bojowe_oddzia.C5.82.C3.B3w_partyzanckich. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I do think there's a good point in there - not all Lithuanian police were Saugumas and in some points where sources mention Lithuanian police they're talking about just regular police. Saugumas was particularly targeted by the AK though.VolunteerMarek 15:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be correct to write "Lituanian Schutzmannschaft (police) battalions and Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force (Lietuvos Vietinė rinktinė)" and dont use Saugumas (I dont understand polish, but I didnt found informatios about "saugumas" in pl:Okręg_Wilno_AK#Wa.C5.BCniejsze_akcje_bojowe_oddzia.C5.82.C3.B3w_partyzanckich. I checked links in wikipedia, but in english I didnt found correct information (about Lithuanian schutzmannschaft), unfortunately authors mix definitions. "Saugumas", "Tautinio darbo apsaugos batalionas" and etc were important, but not big units. Lituanian Schutzmannschaft battalions (police battalions) and Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force are more appropriate when talking about the fight with AK. You can check information in polish[REDACTED] pl:Lietuvos Vietine Rinktine, pl:Litewskie bataliony Schutzmannschaft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankas (talk • contribs) 18:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not list all of them - the Schutzmannschaft, the Saugumas and the LTDF? It's true that Saugumas wasn't numerically big but it enjoyed a very bad reputation among Poles and that's why it's members were targeted by the AK. The way it roughly worked is that regular Lithuanian police units rounded up the Poles, and then Saugumas interrogated and executed them (or handed them over to the Germans for the same thing). So no, there were no "pitched" battles between the AK and (numerically smaller) Saugumas, just like there were no pitched battles between, say, the Gestapo and AK, but the AK did target ranking members of both (Saugumas and Gestapo) organizations.VolunteerMarek 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you. Do you change it, or should I change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankas (talk • contribs) 06:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Henryk Flame

This article of yours needs some more inline cites for B-class. I've tagged the claims that need reference (plus, the sentence about "leftist historians" probably needs NPOV rewording). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

77.188.69.180

On User talk:Tom Morris#Protection of Torun article, an IP you have had previous interactions with is accusing you of all sorts of terrible things. Is there a page on, say, WP:LTE that lists this user? I'm not up-to-date on the contours of the Eastern Europe debates on Misplaced Pages, so rather than blithely refer said IP to, say, DRN or ANI, it'd be useful to know where you are coming from. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef banned user who has engaged in long term disruptive activity and abuse. I put a link to the last block on your talk page. Original block by Jimbo, was actually done through the original Misplaced Pages list back in 2003 or 2004 2002.VolunteerMarek 17:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Bydgoczcz

Marek, the sentence was not in reference to Nazi Germany. It was in reference to its being part of Prussia, which then became Germany - for several hundred years of recent history. That if a fundamentally significant fact of the city's identity - that the city had a predominantly German character - not the occupation during WWII. But anyway, it would take quite some effort to make such facts reflect in Misplaced Pages, so it's not really worth it.Keizers (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

Factseducado (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chopin B-class

I disagee with . I see unreferenced paragraphs, that's a quick fail B-class in my book. Milhist will not pass any B-class article with unreferenced para, and that's a good guideline (for quickfailing, at least). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I only see two, maybe three unreferenced paras in the article and none of them seem controversial or doubtful. For an article of smaller size I'd readily agree, but given the length here when I assessed it I didn't think those two or three unreferenced paras were enough to fail it. But perhaps it's better to have higher standards even for B-class (especially if the view is to eventually get them up to GA etc.) So please feel free to downgrade accordingly.VolunteerMarek 01:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Gdansk-Vote-Notice

Are you advocating this procedure for the execution of the Gdansk-Vote? Please let me know - because then we can apply it to the whole period of 1308 - 1945. Thanks. --IIIraute (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What procedure exactly are you referring to?VolunteerMarek 23:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Placing the translation of the name with the notes... : "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig)." ... although it says very clearly that "the first reference" (the name) should include a reference to the other name → Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). But if you want to get that changed, I will support a new crosslinking vote, so we can place all translations for toponyms for the 1308 - 1945 period, and vice versa, in the notes. Maybe that's a good idea - what do you think? --IIIraute (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that the translation should go into the reference?VolunteerMarek 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as your last editing regarding Gdansk, Szczecin‎, etc. suggests that you are in favour of this method - so should we try to establish a new crosslinking vote, so we can ban all translations for toponyms for the 1308 - 1945 period, and vice versa, to the notes. Only German names for the 1308 - 1945 period and only Polish names for the time before and after - with all translations for toponyms being part of the notes?--IIIraute (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you excluding post 1945 here? That's where the main problem/controversy is, with you putting in the German names into articles where they're not particularly relevant.VolunteerMarek 13:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not exclude post 1945: "Only German names for the 1308 - 1945 period and only Polish names for the time before and after." (..."after", meaning "after 1945") --IIIraute (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. So you're advocating that for pre-1308 and post-1945 Polish names are used but German names go into a footnote, while for 1308-1945 German names are used and Polish names are put into a footnote. Right? Problem 1. I still have an issue with the middle period, roughly 15th century until partitions of Poland when these places were part of Poland, albeit with large German speaking populations. Problem 2. Which geographical area? Gdansk Pomerania? Szczecin? East Prussia? Silesia? All of them? These two issues are likely to come up in any kind of consideration, but having said that, it's not necessarily a bad idea.VolunteerMarek 00:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean that in every article mentioning Meißen, Cottbus or Bautzen we will have to put in parentheses Misnia, Chociebuz and Budziszyn? Rübezahl (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2012

(UTC)

Yes, that's what the literal interpretation of the vote of the sort that IIIraute is pursuing would imply.VolunteerMarek 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

...has already been done (as appropriate): Bautzen - Cottbus - Meißen --IIIraute (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No it hasn't.VolunteerMarek 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course it hasn't started! Illraute lied through his nose! I began the process myself, but I'm having second thoughts. Maybe we do need another vote. This time let's not allow the Germans alone to write the questions, instructions, comments, elimination of inconvenient votes, results and finally the outcome (the existing outcome has even the Polish name misspelled!). It should be a joint project. Skoranka (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think, enough has been said!--IIIraute (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Or even worse: Budziszyn (now Bautzen, Germany)? Rübezahl (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that would be pushing it - but so is putting Danzig into articles on Stocznia Gdanska or Lech Walesa.VolunteerMarek 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

...why - that's not part of the vote.--IIIraute (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure it is. Shared history.VolunteerMarek 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

you have to apply it to the rules for the differend periods as voted for. Before 1308, Bautzen (for example), was only for 15 years (1018-1033) under Polish rule. Cottbus and Meißen have no pre-1308 Polish/German history at all.--IIIraute (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter how long? Shared history is shared history and we're being literal here. I don't know off the top of my head for Cottbus, but Meissen was under Polish rule as well. And if we really want to get ridiculously literal then we should change Kaliningrad to Krolewiec. The problem overall is the complete lack of common sense in how you're going about in applying the vote.VolunteerMarek 13:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does → see Posen or Schwetz for example, as deviations in some cases are possible. The operative word being → "possible". However regarding Gdansk for example, the rule is unshakeable.--IIIraute (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I just did see that you were a fierce opponent of the rules established at the Gdansk/Danzig vote, as every single one of your votes ended up being in the minority - so obviously you are rather disappointed. If you are not happy with the result - bring up a new vote. Until then you should accept the vote of the majority. If you feel that the vote is not properly applied to the cities mentioned by you - why not do something about it? --IIIraute (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, then that's not true - the G/D vote was before my time.VolunteerMarek 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not - I think user Rübezahl knows that it was directed towards him.--IIIraute (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an opponent, I like the vote and it's outcome, I just wasn't sure how literally we are going to take it. Rübezahl (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick note to anyone else reading this discussion - if you're confused as to what's going on here it's partly because IIIraute has a habit of moving comments/responding in middle of others' comments and because there are several different proposals going on at once. Lack of clear answers to direct questions is likewise a source of confusion, as is the use of references to statements not actually made or made in non-obvious places. Honestly, I'm confused too.VolunteerMarek 00:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

could you give a quick example of me moving a comment, or responding in the middle of another users comment in this thread? Also: There are no different proposals going on - please comply with the vote, or organize one that overrules the current one. Thank you.--IIIraute (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Chrobry II Battalion

Almost B-class, but needs three cite needed tags addressed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I think bigger problem is that it looks like the English versions of the source (Uprising Museum) went offline so I should probably at least track down the Polish equivalents.VolunteerMarek 01:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Always try the Internet Archive first... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it looks like just some link problem - if you click on the Polish version icon, the sources are still there, so nm.VolunteerMarek 01:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Link rot. Two solutions are IE and googling for the title and other info if present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Fae's ability to serve as administrator. As you are involved, it is recommended that you recuse but do not have to. You are free to participate in discussions. Please keep them civil and constructive. The thread is User:Fae. Thank you.—cyberpower _Online 01:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I should probably mention that I made a comparison of your response to his in that thread. Wnt (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kelus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kelus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

British Pakistani

The cherry picked articles and nonsense subsections etc were added by this user A non resident Indian who has obvious animosity towards Pakistan so you are correct about motives of certain individuals Extramnmsm (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bagel legend

Cześć, Marek. I based my "probably apocryphal" in part on the discussion with you, in which you said the legend was "probably invented," in part on the Wiki bagel entry, and in part on what I've read elsewhere regarding the "bagel" being dreived in Yiddish (a semi-dialect of German) from biegen or beugen. To me that seems more likely than Bügel (stirrup), since the verbs for "to bend" are much more common concepts than "stirrup," and because the humble bagel presumably preceded Sobieski's defense of Vienna.

One aspect of this not very important discussion is that in English "legend" doesn't necessarily mean the story is untrue. In some cases, things that actually happen can become "legendary" in English. I suggest "probably apocryphal" to clarify to the reader that this is probably a mythical legend not based in fact.

Also, it would be more normal in English to say a legend "about" or "regarding" than a legend "of." May I suggest that you revert to the version I offered? Dziękuje. Sca (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that "probably invented" is just my own personal opinion. Lots of those sources I linked to seem to portray the story as "supposedly" or "legend" or "one theory" but none of them come out and say it it's not true or apocryphal. So we really shouldn't take a position on whether the legend - which is what it is - is true or not.VolunteerMarek 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought bagel was from beygl (or beygel), depending on how you transliterated the Yiddish from the Hebraic text. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who knows both Yiddish and Hebrew can tell us.

In the various things I've read over the years, an etymology linked to beugen and its variants or back-formations is most frequent.

BTW, as it happens, I have a bottle of Sobieski Vodka in my fridge at this very moment. Mostly empty.

Sca (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Marian Bernaciak

Two cite requests and it is B-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Kelus.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kelus.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Pomeranian Griffin

Addressing the single cite request is needed for this to remain at B-class. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

It's good to see you around. Now I finally agree with your position about discretionary sanctions (see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Effect_of_arbitration_processes_on_editor_retention). My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bronson

Hi Marek, I've been watching this slow edit war at Charles Bronson and spent the time reviewing the talk page and doing some research on it. I don't see a clear consensus on the talk page and I believe that this would be the route to follow. If I understood where consensus lay, I could help enforce it.

There is someone who has left a thread about him being Lithuanian which has gone unanswered on the talk page.

Fwiw, I think there is some truth to both claims (and understand if Bronson also self-identified as Russian a time or two). We need a clear consensus. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This would work a lot better if the IPs that are doing the reverting 1) actually discussed the issue and also 2) added their own sources and text rather than removing sourced text itself. The page was protected previously and the IPs came right back as soon as the protection expired. I'm pretty sure I can guess who the IPs belong to, and the most likely reason for 1) is that it is a user who is under a topic ban from editing anything related to people's nationality, and explaining their position on talk page might give away too much and subject them to an SPI per the Duck test.VolunteerMarek 18:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully and yes, both seeking protection and sock hunting are where my mind is at. You are beginning to confirm what I've been suspecting. Is there not enough evidence for an SPI or you are afraid that the info would be too stale? I'm not exactly sure who you are indicating (if you don't want to state it publicly, you can email me).

I will begin helping you revert while steering them toward the talk page. I'm hoping we can achieve article stability. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Cakes

Please don't feel offended by rude edit summaries. It's easy doing, around here. Meanwhile, erotic cakes are a variety of cakes popular across the entire Western world. See: The Food Lover's Guide to Seattle, among thousands of bakeries with webpages and pics online. The article makes no mention of how popular the trend really is. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 15:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The addition of that text is silly and trivial, and essentially a form of trolling. If it's not, then there should be reliable sources about it, rather than random internet pages.

But I generally don't get offended by what people say on Misplaced Pages (unless they say it to others as a way of bullying).VolunteerMarek 16:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

King Michael

Please see this section and Misplaced Pages:Consensus. The discussion on the talk page resulted in the article being named Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki and the consensus did not expire after three years. It just means that nobody disputed it for three years and that you should seek a new consensus through a discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said in my edit summary, the last discussion was three years ago and the last move was made without a proper RM. Additionally, there are two very obvious objections to the proposed change and you seem to be the only one arguing for "Michael". So I don't quite understandwhy are you pointing me to Misplaced Pages:Consensus? The discussion you're pointing me to now is... six years old, and equally thin, if not thinner. I don't see the relevance.VolunteerMarek 15:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the last discussion was three years ago but when did you start a discussion to move the article back? The three-year-old discussion resulted in the article being moved to Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki; there was no discussion to move it back. A RM is not neccessary for a move to be made; the discussion I started attracted no opposition save for Piotrus who later abandoned the discussion. Your move was made without any discussion whatsoever. Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

We're getting into the "who moved the article without discussion first" territory. I moved it because you moved it despite the fact that there were objections to the move. Let's have a proper RM.VolunteerMarek 15:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Panorama

Marek, there was no need to come to my talk page to discuss this (I don't mean that in an aggresive way, just that we need to focus the dicsussion to the article talk page. You are welcome to my talk page for anything else!). I know Walter is a little difficult to work with, but we need to focus on discussing the content on the talk page. If we do that then we can improve the article. However, we do actually need to discuss the content, there has been to little of that going on. My advice would be if Walter says something that irritates you just ignore it. Adam4267 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up. I just wanted to make sure you got to see the comment, in case it got lost in a sea of subsequent bickering or something.VolunteerMarek 18:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand but don't worry I've got it all on my watchlist. Lets hope there is no more bickering anyway. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) and B-class

This article to which you contributed is almost B-class, but needs a few cite requests addressed. If they aren't, we will have to downgrade it to C-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Maus

I've added a bunch of information on the Polish translation and reception of Maus (amongst other things) from MetaMAUS, and would appreciate some feedback on it. CüRlyTüRkey_Contribs 08:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Jimbo Wales

About your comment...note that filibustering is still for routine business, and an amendment to the US Constitution would still require 3/4 (38 of the current 50), for long-term broad sweeping changes, so yeah, only. Dru of Id (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the part of the Misplaced Pages constitution which requires that idiotic status quo must be preserved until 3/4 of the editors get convinced otherwise? This is a classic example of how common sense ideas are throttled by an out of touch with reality insistence on (near) unanimity. 3/4, 2/3, whatever, in practice, it pretty much functions like the liberum veto (nota bene - early in its career even that could be overridden but it established a dangerous precedent. Same thing here).VolunteerMarek 03:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nom

Please put the usual {{subst:DYKtick}} in front your last comment here. Standard procedure. Everyone's waiting for it. Thanks a million. Poeticbent talk 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Komandosi

Hi, I'm just reminding you that the page you created at Komandosi was unreferenced. Please note that the WP:Autopatrolled right assumes that you will agree to criteria for new articles and can be revoked. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about.VolunteerMarek 03:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Page created at 2:46. You show up about 15 minutes later and post a threatening message to my talk page. How about this: find a better use for your time and quit wasting mine.VolunteerMarek 03:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing threatening in that message - please get your facts straight, and please review WP:CIVIL. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)