Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 19 May 2014

Donetsk People's Republic

Hello, Volunteer! Just would like to know the rationale behind the deletion of the Donetsk People's Republic from the tab of unrecognized states. Whatever we may think of the actions in Ukraine, I cite the Montevideo Convention: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." While it is obvious that this "country" will not be recognized any time soon, it seems to me that the people who run it seem to follow these criteria.Respond soon please! Mousemenace(Mousemenace (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)) (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC) May 12/2014

Disruptive editing

Hello Marek, as you know, we have had a hot dispute already and I prefer that we find a way to cooperate. You are welcome to challenge every single edit that I made in the past week or two on the talk page, but please do not undo results of many days of work if you know that such reversion will be challenged. Let's give all parties the time to consider all arguments and proceed through small changes to reach a consensus. Best, Petr Matas 09:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if these were the "results of many days of work". I do know that what you did is just remove sourced text - knowing that such reversion will be challanged - per some kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've merely restored it. If you want to make changes then do discuss them on talk (you have been discussing other changes so do the same with these). If we're going to "proceed through small changes to reach a consensus" then let's start with the version before your massive removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

A beer for you!

Seems like you deserve and may well need one after this week. And may it be a darker beer than shown in the picture. :) John Shandy` • talk 23:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Treblinka graph

Hi, Volunteer Marek. Did you use any special program to create your nice graph (right), or did you draw it the old way... i.e. by adding each line manually together with the shaded background and the legend? – The reason I ask is because it is completely wrong, even without you knowning. The last long blue line denoting over 65,000 victims on November 10, 1942 is a cumulative number for the entire month starting November 10 and ending on December 15, 1942. That one blue vertical line makes the whole window jump up by 40% (40,000 to 70,000) for no good reason. The same is true about the October 15, 1942 arrivals. The “Aktion” lasted for eight days numbering some 22,000 people from Piotrkow Trybunalski alone, deported in four transports every two days. You marked a whole week (the cumulative number) as one single day. We have two choices, either to remove your graph from mainspace, or fix it somehow. I don't know what to do. – Please explain how your graph came into being so I can decide if I can help. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 05:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I used excel, though I'm not sure if I still have the file. But it shouldn't be too hard to get the data in there again.

That big spike (which I think is actually 66300) is the sum of the indicated deportations for November 10. According to that source, there were two additional deportations in the period Nov 10-Dec 15 (Gniewoszow, 1000 and Siedlce, 1700). Basically the graph reflects that source, so since that source puts all the deportations on Nov 10th, I put them that way in the graph. Note in the source also says Warsaw Ghetto Deportation Statistics – Source BZIH 1 (1951) 81, 86, 90. The November 1942 deportations from the Bialystok General District from 10 November 1942 were often via a number of collection camps such as Bogusze, Kelbasin, Volkovysk.. So the high number on that day probably includes those who were temporarily in the collection camps.

Likewise for the deportation from Piotrkow Trybunalski, the reason the whole number is for Oct 15 is that it reflects the source.

I remember thinking about that issue a bit and then decided to stick with the source since we don't really know how exactly the deportations were distributed over the relevant time period. Note that these are deportations not necessarily the killings.

In terms of fixing it I think just adding a note to the graph would be fine. Alternatively we could distribute the large numbers over the relevant period equally (e.g. divide the 22k by 8 for that time period). But that would be a bit of original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is also how the data is portrayed at Timeline_of_Treblinka, so if the graph is wrong, so is the table it's based on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• The deportations (not the killings) that went on for over a month cannot be illustrated as a single line on the first day. Please look if you can find that excel file. We might have to rethink it. I spent quite a bit of time today trying to fix the Timeline of Treblinka article. The chicken or the egg causality dilemma. Poeticbent talk 08:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's how the table in the source presents it. I'm assuming that the date given is when the deportations began, not when the deportees arrived.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• The HRP source at http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/ar/treblinkadaytoday.html is where the real problem started. – I did my own research today beginning with your own graph, and that's how I learned about it, thanks to http://kehilalinks.jewishgen.org/Svisloch/treblinka_deportations.htm – If we can't find a way to fix your graph, it would probably have to be removed. I hope you're OK with that. Poeticbent talk 09:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm considering the issue and looking around if there's a more detailed source out there which could improve the graph. Gimme a day or two.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Crimean status referendum, 2014". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  04:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have taken the complaint back - I have found that it belongs to RfC/U. Petr Matas 07:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"remove the SA"

If not secret, what does 'SA' mean? --Adriano Morelli (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"See Also". Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Adriano Morelli (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

...

""gee I'm having a really hard time finding a reliable source to support what I want the article to say. Maybe I'm actually POV pushing here" Try it. Say it out loud to yourself." Shame on you. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

??? What are you complaining about? That's what you did and that's what you should have asked yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please explain

Sir, ever since I made this post, you appear to be following me from article to article, looking for opportunities to quarrel with me. If you would be so kind as to explain to me what I have done to offend you, perhaps we might resolve our differences, whatever they are. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

population growth rate

regarding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Population_growth&diff=607582568&oldid=607582446

Yes, but look at the expression given, which should have a $t_1-$t_2$ in the denominator.

Someone removed my correct expression because it needed too much calculus to understand, and put in this (wrong) one instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gah4 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hyon Song-wol

You might remember that you commented that the "DYK" of Hyon Song-wol might have contributed to her execution. You would be happy to know she wasn't executed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the note, and the news, and looking quickly at the article it looks like you've been doing a good job over there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Undone edit to the Ukraine article

Hi,

Why did you undo my edit to the Ukraine article? It merely added a link to the Russia article when Russia was first referred to.

Lexoka (talk)

I don't know which edit you are referring to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I found it. It got caught up in a series of other person's unconstructive edits and was rejected in the pending revision. I'll restore your edit. Sorry and thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Report of "Pres. Council"

Dear colleague, why do you remove "pres.council report" attribution? The council itself stated on its page, that report is not a "Council position", but a personal work of one of it's members (text in bold on top of report page). Because it's not English? Seryo93 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For starters, you removed secondary sources and replaced them with a primary source, with your own particular interpretation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation. Let me quote here:

В связи с многочисленными ссылками СМИ на обзор "Проблемы жителей Крыма" как на официальный документ Совета при Президенте РФ по развитию гражданского общества и правам человека, выражающий оценку Советом крымского референдума, разъясняем, что он таковым не является.

Or google translate:

Due to the numerous references to the media review "Problems of Crimean residents" as an official document of the Presidential Council for Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights, the Council expresses assessment Crimean referendum, make it clear that he is not.

Secondary sources may misrepresent information. Isn't primary source unreliable for official position of the council? Seryo93 (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33.

Please see this for example. --IIIraute (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)