Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 17 August 2010

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Arch1 /Arch2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

DYK for Swietopelk I, Duke of Pomerania

On July 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Swietopelk I, Duke of Pomerania, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

Please sign your posts properly. Currently, your signature ("Radek") does not resemble your username, is not providing a link to your user space, as required, and does not include a timestamp. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I second this request. Varsovian (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you guys please first read the discussion you are supposed to take part in . Colchicum (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry can´t do, not without going to way more trouble than I feel like. Obviously even with the mysterious and cryptographic signature ´Radek´ both of youse are apparantly intelligent enough to have tracked me down, or, obviously, you wouldn´t be here at User talk:Radeksz wasting my time with this low intensity harassment.

If somebody can tell me an easy way to sign my comments without having to use tildas, then I´ll sign them. Radek.

Hi Radek. On the edit bar, there's an icon of a pencil. When you click on it, it inserts four tildes for you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that´s helpful, though for some reason it tends to throw up the tildas at some random spot on the edit page rather then end of a comment and then I have to copy-paste moveém. But I´ll do it, just for Skapp and Varsovian.radek (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In my experience (which is extensive, given that my keyboard doesn't have tildas on it either), when one clicks the pencil icon (or clicks the insert bar below where it rather clearly states "Sign your posts on talk pages") the tildas are placed in the position where the cursor was last located. Given that you have now been told three times how to sign your posts (which makes them searchable, clear on the edit history and time/date stamped), will you please be so kind as to sign all your posts as is required by WP policy. Throwing around accusations of harassment in no way changes an editor's requirement to comply with WP rules, even when that editor is you. Varsovian (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh get over it. Ít´s not required by Misplaced Pages rules (the link provided by Skapp is about formatting your signature, not about requiring that you sign your posts), it´s just considered http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices, which I´ll be happy to resume when it´s comfortable for me to do so. You´d think that using the pencil icon (which is not available on all skins) would put your signature at the position of the cursor, but apparantly that is not always the case. I´ve got some clunky equipment here. Now, please don´t bother me with this again (either one of you) - I will in fact consider a continuation of this pointless thread harassment.radek (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Republic of Ostrów

On August 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Republic of Ostrów, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Władysław Wawrzyniak

On August 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Władysław Wawrzyniak, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

About wars (including edit-wars)

Proposing a ceasefire and a song . Have a good day.Lokyz (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Comm. of Danzig

Radeksz, as you are well aware the naming of Danzig/Gdansk is a controvercial topic. The article dealt with the history of Jews until WWII/Holocaust. Following the Gd.vote we should use the name Danzig for that period, especially as all sources (including publications of the Jewish Museum (New York) etc.) use the Name Danzig. However we might discuss which name is appropriate as endorsed at WP:MOVE#Before moving a page. I ask you to revoke this move. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It dealt with history of Jews until WWII because you arbitrarily chose to limit the scope of the article to the period 1308-1945 (i.e. when "Danzig" would apply). There's material beyond that though, including about the present day community. Your statement "all sources.... yse the Name Danzig (sic)" is simply FALSE; these sources which you yourself included in the article all use Gdansk: , . Not that it matters - the reason why we have the Gdansk/Danzig vote is PRECISELY to settle these kinds of disputes quickly. And this is what the Gdansk/Danzig vote implies for the article:

• The name of the article should be Jewish community of Gdańsk since that is the contemporary name of the city, but the name "Danzig" should be in the lead
• For the period 1308 until 1945 the form Danzig (Gdańsk) should be used. For other periods it should be Gdańsk (Danzig)

That's what the article had when I finished working on it. Now you've turned it into one big violation of the vote which I'm going to undo.radek (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe you misunderstood the scope of the article, it's not about the modern Jewish community in Gdansk but about the history of the pre-war community. And that's what is perfectly described by the title "..in Danzig". The pre-war community ceased to exist and today a different community with only a few things in common exists. The Jewish Museum (New York) once organized an exhibition "Danzig 1939: treasures of a destroyed community" and that's exactly what happened. Adding some unsourced sentences about the modern situation does not improve the article nor does your refusal to discuss the move improve the atmosphere. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC) P.S.:"yse the Name Danzig (sic)" - if you cite a single typo to ridicule me you shouldn't create a new one on your own.

The scope of the article is the "Jewish community of...the city" - so I don't see why modern community needs to be excluded, except to force the article under "Danzig". There ARE actually connections between the modern community and the pre war one, Jakub Szadaj being one example - which I'm going to expand and source shortly. My apologies for the unnecessary (sic) thing.radek (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

See here for an explanation of this block.  Sandstein  12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

some fun

e4 Bc4 d3 Ne2 exd5 0-0 Nc3 Nc3 f4 Bf4 Kh1 Be5 Qh5 Be6 Bg7 Qg4 Rf8+ Qg5+ Rf1 radek (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
e5 Nf6 Be7 d5 Nd5 0-0 Nc3 c6 ef4 Qb6+ Qb2 Qb6 Be6 fe6 Qc5 Qg5 Kg7 Bg5  Dr. Loosmark  12:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

i think the move is Raf1, right? in that case i resign, i will never be able to free from the pin on the 8. rank. well played.  Dr. Loosmark  20:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's the one (sorry I'm not used to the notation). Had me worried though - if my attack'd fizzled the game would've been yours. If you want to play another one then your turn to be White.radek (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1.c4 g3 Bg2 Nf3 Nd4 cd5 d3 Nb3 Nc5 0-0 Nc3 de4 Qa4 Ne4 Qe4 Qe3 b3 Kg2 Qf3 Ba3 Rad1 Rd5 Bb2 Qc3 Ra1 Dr. Loosmark  21:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
2. e5 c6 Nf6 e4 d5 cd5 Bc5 Qb6 Qc5 0-0 Bf5 de4 Bd7 Ne4 Bc6 Qb4 Bg2 Qg4 Qd7 Re8 Qb5 Qa6 Qa2 f6 Resignradek (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

are you sure?  Dr. Loosmark  22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I read that as d4. Hold on.radek (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

i assumed it's Bc6 actually.  Dr. Loosmark  11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah.radek (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

going to sleep now. have you though of Qc1 instead of taking with Ne4? looked really complicated, i couldn't figure who would have come on top.  Dr. Loosmark  02:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you'd take Nf3 with check, I take gf3 but my pawn formation gets screwed up and my position sucks.radek (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I was trying to evaluate: Qc1 Nf6 gf6 Rac1 Ba4 then Bb7 Nd7 Ba8 Ra8, at first glance looks fantastic, 2 pawns + R for B + N, plus the control of the c-line. However I am not sure how white wins that one, if black manages to block the extra pawn on the b file then it can get complicated. I think it's practically more difficult than how the game went. Btw thanks for fixing the Resovia article, somehow that simple solution didn't occur to me.  Dr. Loosmark  19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Jewish community of Danzig

Hello, is the DYK nom for the Jewish community of Danzig still being supported? If so, please clarify any concerns there before it becomes out-dated and deleted at DYK. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Prince-Bishop

I've reverted your edit at Prince-Bishop and suggested we discuss the issue to try to find consensus at Talk:Prince-Bishop#Nationalist / anti-nationalist place naming, where I assume you will way to express your opinion. Let's see if we can solve this dispute amicably. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940)

Hi! Please, tell me, verdict of an international court about "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union". Remember the presumption of innocence. I believe in the mind. Do you believe? 102RB (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)