User talk:Tulkolahten

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Click here to add a new message

Read Signpost Archive

Archives
No.1. No.2. No.3. No.4. No.5. No.6. No.7. No.8. No.9.

Thanks

Thanks for the timely revert on my talk page whilst I was taking lunch, much appreciated. It was in all likelyhood in response to my clearing up and warning a very similar ip's vandalism elsewhere, such gratitude, I'm totally ~~over~~whelmed ;) --Alf ^melmac 12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking

I noticed you contacted three users some hours ago ([1] [2] [3]) - all seemingly Czech - directing them to your moving request at Talk:Prague_groschen#Requested_move, where you're supporting the Czech variant. This can be considered votestacking, especially considering the decisive effect that just one more vote in support would have in the current state of the poll. Sciurinæ 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Let me know if You need anything. OK? Thanks again. Space Cadet 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zich

You're welcome. That's what I'm here for. Let me know if there's another article you'd like me to take a look at. --Milkbreath 14:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Antoni Julian Nowowiejski

Yes, WP:SNOW was becoming apparent. It's a shame the nominator did not express regret, but in any case I plan to expand this article into a DYK. And certainly, do enjoy my box :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Thank you very much. It surprised me but it was a very nice surprise. :) - Darwinek 08:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cracow / Kraków

Indeed; Matthead is being particularly disruptive. Sigh. I am half tempted to do a WP:RM from Kraków to Cracow to show futility of it, but it would be WP:POINTless. I hope a single editor with a grudge will not derail the article's chances for being GA-ed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:3RR

Including changes from 3 October, I am pretty sure there are more than 3 reverts, that user is restoring / removing the same pieces of information, only changing pattern every few edits. Plus this revert warring is disrupting GAC review.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I checked, it was at WP:ANI/3RR. You may also want to read WP:3RR.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should give credit where due: this is a useful edit, and you should remove it from your report. It's shame most of his other edits are not like this. PS. This and this edits are also helpful and should not be penalized. On the other hand, he has made several new edits since then that are disruptive.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Ahooj. No zatim ne, i kdyz jsem jim psal. A oni to husakovsky "vyslechli a nechali bez odpovedi" :). Podle zakulisnich informaci od jednoho pritele blizkeho ArbComu se ten deli ted na tri skupiny. a.] ti, kterym to je jedno b.] ti, kteri me maji radi a fandi mi c.] ti, kteri se boji, co se stane kdyz dostanu zpet ta prava. Ta posledni klika je asi ted rozhodujici, asi se boji, ze na ne zautoci ti, kteri utocili na me behem tehdy toho rizeni. Je to sice jen Wikipedie, ale pripomina mi to politickou hru. - Darwinek 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me? :) Ja su neskodnej :). Jinak doufam, ze ty nase barnstary jsou jiz zachraneny. - Darwinek 11:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh

Nice smile graphic. :) Hadn't seen that one. And I've been around the block....too many times. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

I am quite capable of fixing Paivi Paunu, thank you; I simply choose not to. That is the responsibility of the irresponsible editors who created the problem in the first place, or of somebody else who cares whether or not this article and zillions of others like it remains hidden away in oblivion. Gene Nygaard 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pomoc

Ahoj. Mrkni prosim na Hevstäf. Vypada to divne. Tezko to je soucasny nazev s tim "ä", nemohu to nikde najit. No zcela urcite to neni samostatna obec, mozna mestska cast. Diky. - Darwinek 14:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No jestli jde o Dientzenhofery, tak by asi bylo dobre sehnat nejaky tisteny zdroj, ktery by ten spor rozstrihl. Nevyznam se tak, mozna, ze to byli Cesi, mozna Nemci a mozna i pul na pul :). Ono to byvalo v historii s temi jmeny ruzne. Jestli jde o Hevstaf, tak to vskutku vypada divne, pritom ten uzivatel uz je zaregistrovany dlouho a zatim ani neni tak nervni jako onehdy Bolekpolivka. Jestli jde o mapy.cz, tak tam maji i historickou verzi map (kde jsou nemecka jmena obci), jestli to neni ani tam, tak to asi bude skutecne hoax. Dodatek: On tam cituje mimo jine The misleading nature of Leibniz's Monadology, ted jsem to stahl z JSTOR a o tom miste tam nic neni. :) Hoax jako vysity. - Darwinek 19:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozna by taky bylo dobre pridat do clanku sablonu {{Hoax}} a rozvest duvody trochu na talk pagi. Co myslis? - Darwinek 20:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate that you are not blaming me if Hevstaf becomes considered a "hoax". It was certainly not my intention with this article, but I feel as though some are pointing at me for creating the article. In truth, if it is a hoax (which I truly believe it is not), then I DO have some responsibility for having created the article. I have some responsibility and only I can take credit for it.71.179.158.17 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS-My browser never works unless it is inside the "secure.wikimedia". En.wikipedia.org signs me out instantly and no matter what I have done to alter how my browser views cookies, it continues to do that. Hence the "unsigned" post. This is Zebraic.

Not Sources

I realize that they are not considered viable Wikipedia sources because they have mirrored Wikipedia due to the GFDL. That was not my point. My point was dealing with the concept of consensus reality. Zebraic 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]