| Revision as of 23:57, 20 April 2007 edit195.56.91.23 (talk) →"banned users not allowed": clarifying, minor expansion← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:37, 21 April 2007 edit undoJuro (talk | contribs)9,151 edits banned users (Vince B) are not allowed to edit the wikipediaNext edit → | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| Yes. ] 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | Yes. ] 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == "banned users not allowed" == | |||
| Hi! | |||
| I haven't been banned ever, I don't see in the block log, nor in the "what links here" (my IP userpage) any sign of that this IP was banned before... I see only, that it was used before me on nov 20th, but no other sign. since this is a dinamic IP, I believe, if you say, it has been used by a banned User before me, but as I repeat, I haven't run into autoblock, or found any sign of your claims right now. I would be happy, if you would not delete any of my comments and contributions. These are not vandalisms. Thank you. --] 21:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hey, I see, you have a strong accusatory style . {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|With regards to your comments on ]: }}Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) -->. | |||
| As for your very disputable contribution, wich links are in fact leading to different words, than those marked, I believe, a bit more is needed, than a Russian dictionary, to prove, or dispute that. --] 22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Look, with your reverts, like this: , you put back wrong translations, geographical names and such, like you mixed again the Hungarian and the Slovak part, despite the fact, that it is even in the title of that artilce, that it is only about the Hungarian parts of that region. ("Northern Medium Mountains '''(Hungary)'''"), so the article must be Hungary centered, in fact, only Hungary oriented. For example the Slanec Mountains have nothing to do with the NMM's Hungarian parts, but I left them in, since I'm not unerring too. In my opinion, my version is way more coherent with the title and thus the reality, and in fact it is, since I linked in the Geological Institue of Hungary's homepage (and book series about the region) to bolster my version. Since you deleted my comments and edits, and haven't bolstered why my edits are wrong, just gave a derogatory comment for reverting, I just want to notice you, that I reverted your revert at ], and also asked User:Tankred, to act the same. If you want to dispute, my edits, that's what dscussion pages are for :) --] 23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:37, 21 April 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:
- 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