Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:29, 1 May 2007

I have unblocked you, but keep in mind that this is your last chance. You should be much more careful from now on with your behaviour, because it's much easier to get yourself blocked with your blocking history. Also, not that it's not acceptable to use sockpuppets to edit the same set of articles, even if you don't use them for "disruptive behaviour". bogdan 10:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

It is really encouraging that you edit here, in spite of all the wars. Pavel Vozenilek 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

nuclear power plants

Perhaps something like Planned nuclear power stations in the Czech Republic could be written for Slovakia, as a complement. Just thinking. Pavel Vozenilek 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Karel Čapek

I have reverted your edit of the article. The website mentioning "dělňas" is somebody's blog, and as a matter of fact it's inaccurate - the Čapek's article in Lidové noviny says something quite different (Czech, English). Karel Čapek intended to call the creatures "laboři", but he didn't like the word himself. When he told his brother Josef that he didn't know how to call them, Josef suggested "roboti". And of course, the word "robota" exists in the Czech language as well; in modern Czech, it normally refers to feudal labour. (I already stated that in the article's talk page.) Regards, Mike Rosoft 07:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the use of "robota" in most European languages. The problem is that the blog mentions an article from 1930 (i.e. another article), that I read the same story several times elsewhere in he past and that the cited article does not deal with the origin and certainly does not aim at mentioning all alternatives. So, unless this is someone's huge hoax, what the blog says is correct. Since the old newspaper is not accessible online, I do not know how to prove this, someone would have to go to the National Library (in Prague). Juro 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call it a hoax; rather, a case of somebody making an inaccurate statement and others repeating it. (After all, this is exactly how urban legends and other rumors and misinformation spread.) Also, I find it hard to believe that Čapek would write twice in Lidové noviny on the same topic, once in 1930 and again in 1933, and each time telling basically the same story but with significant differences.

  I also remember reading the story about Josef Čapek being the true inventor of the word (such as in Ludvík Souček's "Opravník oblíbených omylů"), and each time the original word was "labor", not "dělňas". I tried looking it up on the Internet, finding:

  • Copies of the Misplaced Pages article
  • The blog
  • Other websites copying the blog's statements
  • An article in a Slovak newspaper "Slovo" making the same claim - and, by chance, written by the same person as the blog
  • And the readers' responses to the blog, making the same counter-arguments as I did.
• I do have a valid reference for the original Čapek's word (quoting the author's newspaper article). Do you? (I am going to copy this discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Czech Republic; feel free to comment there.) - Mike Rosoft 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, your argument is only "valid", because I do not have the article and the sources where the opposite is written and I am not going to invest my time into this. Secondly, the above text does not contradict what the blog says (there could have been and surely were more alternatives and the author certainly did not take notes of this, because he did not know that this would become relevant one day). Thirdly, the argument that there could not be two articles on a topic is NOT valid and is laughable. Fourthly, the author of the blog as a person is reliable, btw, he can be nevertheless wrong of course. Fifthy, look carefully at the story - it is so detailed and logical that either this is a hoax or it is correct, it cannot be an "error". I hope you are able to understand point five at least. What I plan to do - like aways - is to wait till I come across about the story somewhere again and then I will revert your edits. Juro 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pannonia

Why you removed "Pannonia, Frankish province" from the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pannonia_%28disambiguation%29&diff=122101399&oldid=122051064 Also, if "1444 Pannonia asteroid" is listed into "In astronomy" section, then I do not see why for example "Lower Pannonia" cannot be listed in "In history" section. Both of them are not "just Pannonia", but "Pannonia + something". PANONIAN (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It holds for the names of all asteroids: the asteroid is normally called "proper name X" only, but you can also add the number at the beginning. Iow, Pannonia is another name for 1444 Pannonia (by definition, there is no 1443 Pannonia, for example). On the other hand, Lower Pannonia does not have the alternative name Pannonia only, because Lower Pannonia is only a part of Pannonia. Therefore including it in the main list under the title "Pannonia" is highly misleading, because an uniformed reader could think that you can also call Lower Pannonia just Pannonia. And you can remove the "in astronomy" heading, of cource, if you like. Juro 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and as for the Frankish "province", originally I wanted to write something about it in the main Pannonia article, because I think that is the best place for it if you mean the post-Migration of Peoples period, but then it turned out that I have no time for that. So you can readd it, but I do not think that anybody will write something about that ever...and I would not call it "province" for that time period. Juro 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How would you call it if not "province"? PANONIAN (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, the situation was very chaotic there around the 5th - 7th century, and as I have said above, I have decided not to invest my time into that; they have also created a new subdivision: Pannonia+ something (I do not remember the name) etc. Juro 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "new subdivision" was in fact Balaton Principality that was vassal to the Frankish empire in one time period, and if that is so, then we already included it. PANONIAN (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was created by Theoderich and went like Pannonia V.i..a. Juro 23:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, whatever, but if this separate Frankish province existed as such, then I still believe that it should be included as separate entry into disambiguation page, but I can live with the current version of the page as well. PANONIAN (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pannonian plain/basin

Check those articles now: Pannonian Basin, Pannonian Plain. Are they ok now? PANONIAN (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was bussy with other things - I will create this disambiguation page, just wait a little until I correct all those articles. PANONIAN (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it ok now?:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Pannonian_Basin
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Great_Hungarian_Plain
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Pannonian_Plain

PANONIAN (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Juro 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your changes to Northern Medium Mountains (Hungary)

You have made some changes to the article mentioned before. I'd like to warn you, most of it does not make sense: there's nothing such Mátra hegység etc. in Hungarian, only Mátra; the anon user, whether he was the banned Vince B or not, was right. Also, it would be preferable to not to mix the Mátra-Slanec Area with the North. Med. Mountains; they are quite not the same. As You seem to be upset nowadays, please make the changes by your own hand, or contact me. Thank you in anticipation, --Cserlajos 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The names are taken from Hungarian professional sources (the text cites some 30 geological standard books from the countries around the Pannounian Basin and Carpathians just for the list of units in this area alone), which you will not find - just like for any language - online. That does not mean that there are not names without "mountains" as well, that's a detail. Secondly, I can create I separate article for the Matra-Slanec, if you are so "persuaded" that a geomorphological unit has borders identical with state borders created in 1919, i.e. that the Northern Medium Mountains decided one day that they will cease to be Northern Medium Mountains on the Slovak-Hungarian border. Juro 01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Račianske mýto

You get 1 beer at Red Cafe for the update :) MikeGogulski 00:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...Juro 01:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Slovakia

As it is an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages generally does not include non-encyclopedia language without good reason. What is your reasoning for including comparisons between the Slovak Republic and other European states? Thanks! I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your reason for removing encyclopaedic information? Juro 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning, as already stated twice, is that it is not encyclopedic. You don't compare a green apple to a red apple and a crabapple because they are both apples. You did not answer the question at the root of this discussion. Also, why did you remove the template placed here? I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 00:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"it is not encyclopaedic" means nothing, you have to elaborate, why you delete correct information and I could not think of any reasonable reason you could give. Also, why have you removed the template from your talk page? Juro 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't compare a green apple to a red apple and a crabapple because they are both apples. Such comparisons are not encyclopedic. That is the meaning of not encyclopedic. If one were to add "Slovakia is a country generally around the size of other countries like the Czech Republic and Belgium," that is also correct, but it is not encyclopedic and should rightfully be removed. Once again, why do you believe such language should be included -- especially when there is no language in the article to say why that content is relevant. The template was removed because all you did was copy the template I rightfully put on this page to my page. While I have repeatedly asked you to discuss your changes with me, you have not done so. I have answered your questions, provided appropriate edit summaries, and provided the template to direct you to a policy that seemed helpful. Please explain your actions. I Slota at 67.101.243.74 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) It is YOU who has deleted information a change to an established article version, therefore it is YOU, not ME or anybody else, who has to discuss and give reasons, not those who preserve that information. This encyclopaedia does not work in the way that someone deletes texts and after a revert asks a-posteriori for a discussion. You have to discuss first. (2) The sentence on apples etc. is no argument and is ridiculous, I am expecting reasonable or at least semi-normal argument. I consider the information "encyclopaedic" and see no connection to fruits or any similar objects. So, once again, YOU have removed the information, therefore it is YOU who has to provide arguments for the removal. You would save us a lot of time, if you could finally provide them. Juro 01:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The content is there. This is the discussion. They are not encyclopedic and my logic is just fine. They are not encyclopedic statements and perfectly analogous to what you have dubbed the "apples argument." That argument is a simplification of the situation so that it is easier for you to understand the conflict. If that's too "ridiculous" for you to deal with, I provided the second argument regarding comparing Slovakia to countries in another seemingly random and non-encyclopedic way. What are you having trouble understanding about the argument? Why won't you provide reasoning as to why the non-encyclopedic information should remain? If you believe it is related, why not say how? Also, try to remain civil. Finally, once again, why did you remove a legitimate template from your page here? I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 01:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, saying that something is "non-encyclopaedic" is no argument per se, because you can say about anything in this encyclopaedia that it is non-encyclopaedic. Using a comparison to apples would not be a valid argument in a kindergarden, and it is not valid here. This is not a poem. Apples are no logic. You have to provide at least one CONCRETE argument. How many times do I have to repeat this? Are you having troubles distinguishing names of countries from apples? Juro 01:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a comparison that was quite valid. If you don't understand how the comparison is valid, consider the other comparison I already made; you would not compare Slovakia to other countries by saying: "Slovakia is a medium-sized European country. The Czech Republic and Belgium are also medium-sized countries." That's a correct statement, which thus far is the only reasoning you have provided as to why you believe "The French Republic and the German Republic are also countries whose names are formed like that of the Slovak Republic" -- which is the language you are defending. Answer these questions: Why should such language be included in the article? If it should be included, how can it be rewritten so as to be more relevant in the context of the article? Why did you remove a legitimate template from your talk page? I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the matter with me and respond to my questions when you find you are able. I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost all countries in the world (including Slovakia) have a long form and a short form of the official name. You will find them e.g. in the UN list of country names, in the Slovak (analogously in the German etc.) official geodesy list, and probably also in the CIA factbook. This is what the sentence refers to and not to the particular letters or words of the name. Secondly, this is about the NAMES IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, not about names in foreign languages. What are you talking about??? Thridly, you have still not explained how apples are related to names of countries. Juro 10:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously countries have long forms and short forms of names. That is why the sentence saying that the long form of the Slovak Republic is listed. That is and should be there; no argument. But we haven't been editing that line, so I don't know why you're addressing it. I am talking about the line after that -- the one that we were editing back and forth. That line says "The relation between those two name forms is exactly the same as with Germany vs. Federal Republic of Germany or France vs. French Republic." That is not encyclopedic. It is not related information. Here are my two examples again set up comparatively so you can follow them better.

1. Slovakia is a medium-sized country. (Yes, correct and encyclopedic) Slovakia is a medium-sized country in exactly the same way that the Czech Republic and Belgium are medium-sized countries. (Correct, but should not be included; it is not encyclopedic)

2. A red apple is a type of apple. (Yes, correct and encyclopedic) A red apple is an apple in exactly the same way that a green apple and a crabapple are types of apples. (Correct, but should not be included; it is not encyclopedic)

3. Slovakia's long-form name is the Slovak Republic. (Yes, correct and encyclopedic) Slovakia's long-form name is the Slovak Republic in exactly the same way that France's long-form name is the French Republic and Germany's long-form name is the Federal Republic of Germany. (Correct, but should not be included; it is not encyclopedic)

Here is another example that's even more like the content we're editing:

4. Stalin's full name is Joseph Stalin. (Yes, correct and encyclopedic) Stalin's full name is Joseph Stalin in exactly the same way that Churchill's full name is Winston Churchill and Roosevelt's full name is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (Correct, but should not be included; it is not encyclopedic)

I hope you can finally figure out the comparison. If not, forget about the apple example and try to focus on the other. Again, these are the questions you need to answer: Why should such language be included in the article? If it should be included, how can it be rewritten so as to be more relevant in the context of the article? Why did you remove a legitimate template from your talk page? I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 11:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Edited 11:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The size of Slovakia is irrelevant. Apples are irrelevant. Other languages are irrelevant. You cannot base three sections of "reasoning" on false premises and then pretend that the rest is logical....The only thing you have to do instead of inventing ridiculous comparisons, which you could do the same way for anything in the world, is to explain what is wrong with this particular sentence, given that you yourself admit that the content is correct. If you want to know one practical reason for having this sentence, the reason is that for inexplicable reasons some sources hold that the only correct name of Slovakia is "Slovak Republic" (a typical example would be: "negotiations between Hungary, Slovernia, Poland and the Slovak Republic), which is wrong in any respect. This sentence explains why it is not the case and 99% of readers have no idea what a long or short name is, therefore it is necessary. Juro 12:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that they are irrelevant to the article we're talking about, but not to the discussion. You see, this is how logic works. One person uses examples that simplify the argument so that the other person understands the point. The basis of the argument is that the sentence isn't encyclopedic. It is a comparison to other unrelated things. Writing that France can also be called the French Republic is not relevant to Slovakia. Writing that Germany can also be called the Federal Republic of Germany is not relevant to Slovakia. The only thing that should be included is that the long-form of the name for Slovakia is the Slovak Republic. Also, stop writing anything about other languages; you are the only one who has written anything at all about other languages. It seems to me that you don't understand English well. Would you like me to request assistance from another editor that can correspond with you in your own language?

I understand the point you're making, that there is often confusion over that Slovakia and Slovak Republic are both correct. As an American of Slovak heritage, obviously I also know this. What we need to do, then, is rewrite the sentence so that it actually says why the name (or even the comparison) is important. Do you have any ideas about how to do this? I would suggest removing the line and adding this: "Slovakia and the Slovak Republic may both be used to properly identify the country." That way the irrelevant and non-encyclopedic information about other unrelated countries is avoided and it is understood why there is such emphasis on the two names. I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 12:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one who not only does not understand English, but who has obvious problems with elementary thinking. This is the last time I am going to repeat this (and this type of issues is a typical question in IQ tests, so maybe you should try one): The principle is as follows: short country name: Albania, Bulgaria,....Slovakia, United States... long country name: Republic of Albania, Bulgarian Republic, ....Slovak Republic, United States of America....This works for all countries in the world and has nothing to do with the size of the country (do you understand this?) or with the particular languages (do you understand this?) or with apples (do you understand this?) or with anything else, but with the names themselves. An IQ test would go like this: United Stats of America - United States, Bulgarian Republic - Bulgaria,...Slovak Republic - Slovak Republic: What is wrong?

I can explain it again: The examples show in what exact (because official) relation the names Slovakia - Slovak Republic stand to each other. There is absolutely nothing wrong about them except that it took you personally 1 day to get the point. You can of course elaborate on this, but the section was already shortened by someone. Juro 14:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

quote

You say:

J:once again: (1) the quote (N: which quote?) does NOT say what you claim, do you have reading problems?? Find a normal quote, (2) the rest DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, do you copy???)

N: Please refer the disscusion to article talk page: Nasz 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange edit summary at Slovakia

Regarding your edit summary, "reasons as before, I remind you that you have broken the 3RR rule and should have been banned," to whom is this addressed? Nobody who has edited that page recently has broken the three revert rule. From the context, it looks as though you were addressing me even though the edit you reverted was made by Nasz. I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To you. You have broken the rule, but nobody cares Juro 12:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a complete lie. No one cares because it isn't true. You and I actually had the same number of reversions. I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's possible, but the topic was not me. Juro 12:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, making false accusations is bad practice. I don't really have any response for you, here, though. Enough said. I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 12:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

False accusations? You have deleted the part 3 times, your next edit after my warning would be a definite violation of the rule, irrespective of whether the first deletion counts or not. Juro 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a false accusation to say "I remind you that you have broken the 3RR rule and should have been banned," especially when you made the same number of reversions (also I provided edit summaries stating my reasons; you did not -- now we have the discussion above so the point is moot). Enough said, no more argument here, there's no point. I. Slota at 67.101.243.74 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

VinceB

Hello!

I AM NOT VinceB! As I said, show me your evidence! You are deleting valid informations, with sources, and you are replacing them only with nationalistic theories! You should know, that I informed administratorrs about your behavior. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE VALID INFORMATIONS, its agains the wikipedia term. Thank youPannonia 07:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)