User talk:Tulkolahten/Archive10

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 overwhelmed ;) --Alf ^melmac 12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks!

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

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)

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)

Award

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No hlavne, ze je to uz smazane. Myslim, ze kdyby to bylo na afd jeste dalsi dva dny treba, tak by tech hlasu pribylo. - Darwinek 08:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Heviness

Thank you for spotting the hoax nature of the Hevstad article. DS 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

re:Polish Corridor

Agree completly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

My target was your unsupported claims of a "birth spelling" and that "birth spelling" has anything to do with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Sorry I offended your sensibilities.

I see you made the same sort of rather poorly grouded claim against another editor in the same discussion here. Gene Nygaard 22:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ore Mountains

Thanks for the Ore Mountains name changes. I've been fixing disambiguation page links for a while and thought that the (Germany) name was a bit odd, too. Merenta 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ore Mountains: Germany/Central Europe

Heya, I do appreciate the move of Ore Mountains, however, about hanging the name to "Ore Mountains (German/Czech border)"? The Slovak Ore Mountains and the Romanian Ore Mountains are also both in Central Europe. Cheers, samwaltz 00:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Central Europe is not enough to avoid confusion. The others are ALSO in Central Europe. They are unrelated mountain chains. This is precisely why disambiguation pages exist. samwaltz 17:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, zda se mi, ze to je dost ostre, pro oba. - Darwinek 20:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tribes (game)

[4] isn't 3:2 no consensus instead of delete ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

By head-counting, yes, 3 to 2 votes is a "no consensus" close. But AFD is not a vote, strength of argument can make a difference. Your keep comment was weak, "lack of information" is actually a real reason we have to delete articles, not keep them, see WP:V, if we can't verify the claims of an article, we really can't have that article. The other keep comment said that this was a "game, not a game suppliment" was a reason not to delete, but that's irrelevent, he also said "Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion". That was worth more consideration, but he's a bit confused. Lack of sources cited in the article is grounds for improvement, but if no one can show the sources even exist, it's grounds for deletion, again per WP:V and to some extent WP:N. As the delete votes were based on these core policies and guidelines, they made a much stronger case, and it would have been a mistake to keep the article, given the demonstrated lack of sources.

If sources do exist, I'll reconsider. You can also appeal my decision at WP:DRV if you wish; I think you for coming to me first. --W.marsh 15:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:ArbCom

Yes, I am aware of it. Thanks for notifying me just in case, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Avia-b135.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Avia-b135.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 16:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Quiz question

Guess who's back ...? :) - Darwinek 11:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[5] :) - Darwinek 19:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Love

Díky za WikiLásku :), vždy mě potěší. Navíc věřím na lásku, tu wiki-lásku nevyjímaje. :) - Darwinek 23:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

People born in Kingdom of Bohemia

What are templates for people born in Kingdom of Bohemia dear Tulkolahten ? I need to apply them to Laurentius Corvinus, If I am correct he was born there. I also noticed there isn't a map of the Kingdom on Wiki, would be thankfull if you would be so kind and point me to one, even on the internet, especially with Silesia as part of Bohemia. Best regards. --Molobo 18:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Eduardo Perez

Hi. I noticed that you moved the page to Eduardo Pérez. Did you notice that there was a move request discussion in progress on the talk page, with some opposition to the move? Did you also notice that the source you cited uses the accented form once, and the unaccented form 17 times? I suspect that the unaccented name is actually the form more commonly used in English language sources, but I don't want to move the page back without discussing with you first. Please let me know what you think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought you must not have noticed it. I'm aware of the user in question, and this particular survey was running as sort of a test-case, per User talk:Gene Nygaard#Proposal. I'm sure your input there would be appreciated, whatever title the page happens to have right now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a few comments for now - you say on GTBacchus's talk page that: "I came there from ANI's where was/is a case about the user erasing diacritics" - if you knew that there was debate and controversy about this, then checking the talk page before moving would have been best. Could you do that in future, please? For the record, my take on that ANI thread is that saying it is about a user "erasing diacritics" is ignoring the people in that thread who don't think it is about that (including me). Carcharoth 13:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Carcharoth 14:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RM tempate

Hi Tulkolahten. I noticed the template you created to put on articles with move requests. I don't particularly have an opinion one way or the other on the template, but I would suggest that if more than one person has objected to it or removed it, it's a good idea to avoid restoring it until some honest discussion has occurred. At this point, Gene has expressed that he thinks the template is a bad idea, and Bkonrad has removed it from the article. In the interest of avoiding edit-warring, I'd suggest not restoring it if it gets removed again.

As for moving pages without knowing there's a move discussion in progress, I avoid that by always checking the talk page before doing any moves. I've done hundreds and hundreds of moves, and it's really not that time-consuming to check the discussion. Just a thought. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that; it will probably lower the temperature a bit. As for the template itself, your argument, that we already put cleanup templates on articles, is somewhat alluring. I wonder whether the argument against it comes down entirely to avoiding self-reference, or is there more to it? If it's just about self-reference, then I wonder what justifies the cleanup templates, afd and prod notices, and other items that we allow at the tops of articles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)