Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr. Dan (talk | contribs) at 23:39, 10 December 2007 (→You are being talked about: Appropriate, as I was unable to respond to similar activities on their part.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• December 2005 - March 2006
• March 2006 - July 2006
• July 2006 - December 2006
• January 2007 +

Happy New Year!

Христосъ Воскресе!

Ура! :) --Irpen

Alphabetical order... sure.

It took me a while to really start laughing after I saw this. A smart joke notwithstanding, it was an act of vandalism nevertheless. I suppose we both know that. --Poeticbent talk 15:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you got a laugh. Laughs are good. You'll never know how many laughs the "non-existent Cabal" has given me over time. However the issue remains that the English language is being adulterated by calling Cracow, on English WP, Krakoof (sic), and when Cracow and Krakow are added, alphabetizing them seems quite logical. Sorry that seems to be vandalization to you. I'm beginning to wonder why our Polish editors have a problem with the sound of Cra"COW", and perhaps their auditory perception of "COW" doesn't conjure up a peaceful, contented cud chewing animal, giving milk to all, but conjures up "KAŁ" (a Polish word for fecal matter, that happens to rhyme with cow). Could that be it? Dr. Dan 19:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope we do understand each other here, right? Naturally, alphabetizing was not the source of my laughter, but the messed up spelling was. Your Crakow versus Kracow. Would it be possible than, since you brough that up again as "logical", that the joke might have been unintentional? I find it hard to believe. Albeit, "COW" versus "KAŁ" sounds even funnier. --Poeticbent talk 19:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh that. Although I once told Darwinek don't drink and edit, I probably had a setka or two of żubrówka that night, but I soon corrected the typo myself. Hey, now that I understand what you were driving at, I got a good laugh out of it too. Best. Dr. Dan 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

On Lameness

Maybe the edit war was lame but the description of it was inappropriate for Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars. Your entry looked like a discussion post with arguments for your own side and against the other. You even signed it. The page is not the place to continue an edit war or try to make others think that your side was more sensible. It's a place to show the war was lame, without taking sides. An example of lameness could be that Good Article review failed "Based on the edit warring and the constant bickering". Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars has been nominated for deletion 7 times and would probably have been deleted long ago if people just used it to justify their side in edit wars. PrimeHunter 21:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

check it

you may like to notice that I have added a previously missing section in the denazification article, I thought it was sorely lacking and seemed to be devoid of this portion of Germany. 216.110.236.235 06:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Native placenames

Hi Dr Dan, Just wondering what you meant with your comment regarding the word Cracow becoming obsolete? (Maybe I'm a bit slow today, the coffee machine is broken ;-) ) By the way, I agree that my use of Warszawa on my user page may appear a bit inconsistent. However, there is a logic. Let's put it this way - I recall being rather impressed first with the Brittanica atlas when I was growing up, and later with Google maps, in that they give place names according to the local spelling rather than some anglicised version. Incidentally, this is also why I objected to the change to Navahrudak Voivodeship, having the impression that the native version (at that time and location) was the Polish spelling. Deuar 14:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi back. The use of Warszawa on your user page strikes me as being more than a bit inconsistent with your views (if I understand them properly) regarding the Cracow or Wilno issues on English WP. Or maybe not at all inconsistent. Perhaps you and I will eventually fine tune the matter as they relate to the English language. Dr. Dan 23:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Irpen. As an opponent of censorship, I didn't want to involve myself in the recent "mess", personally. But I agree with your action. Again, I will consider the original request from the contributor, even though he has personally insulted me many times, has sought to censor me, and has demanded that I be "punished" for behavior that he deems objectionable to. However the "same" type of behavior from contributors he has supported in their endeavors, is fine with him. But I do again want you to be clear that my motivations were not of a malicious intention, and were not caused by his behavior. P.P. is merely an abbreviation. The picture (which I like), is merely descriptive. I have posted my own image on my user page and I could care less about a similar link to it. I do agree with P.P. that a picture is worth a thousand words, even though that is not an original thought of his. Best. Dr. Dan 01:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Hi, Dan. The following edits: , look like WP:POINT to me. Please do not do it again Alex Bakharev 04:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Alex, they may appear as WP:POINT to you, however I do intend to further explain my position on Pilsudski's Lithuanian ethnicity (which he acknowledged on numerous occassions) on the J.P. talk page, and appropriately place them into the article where needed. Perhaps you believe that my edits were in retaliation for the recent work of certain parties at the Jonas Basanavicius article and the remarks made on that article's talk page. That would be incorrect. Whereas these provocations had no basis to be put into the Encyclopedia, and there were no attempts to revert them, or admonish those who included them by anyone with the authority to do so, it would be untrue if I said that these edits did not remind me of some unfinished work on the Pilsudski artcle, and my need to address other reverts and the removal of sourced information due to WP:IDON'TLIKE. But no, my intentions were not to make a point, and when you have time to do so, please take a moment to look at the Basanavicius article, it's edit history, and its talk page. Thanks. Dr. Dan 05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a second opinion abut this "look like WP:POINT", posted RE @ --Termer 05:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Czesc Daneczku. Well, I have no doubt about Jogaila But Pilsudski... just a question - why didn't he leave Poland after 1918 to settle in Lithuania? He had a choice and he chose Poland which tells all. greets Tymek (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, he ended up settling his mother there (in Vilnius), and finally his heart there too (in Vilnius). Maybe you've heard of the expression, "Home is where the heart is". Actually his mother was already settled in Lithuania, and died there. The Lithuanian government was very cooperative with her exhumation. Also please remember his dream was to unite his homeland, Lithuania with Poland, kind of like Hitler wanting to reunite his homeland Austria, with Germany. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Btw, thanks for at least acknowledging Jogaila's heritage. Seems I remember SylwiaS and some others wringing their hands over the Jogaila debate with something like "now they are trying to take our king" (a paraphrase rather than an exact quotation).

You are being talked about

here. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you are unaware of the general restriction on Eastern European topics, you should review the ARBCOM decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction. In short, it says any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. As an editor has expressed concern over your behavior at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Dr. Dan inflaming Eastern European topics. I have reviewed the evidence gathered and reported there and am of the opinion that some of your edits have been uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Per the EE General restriction decision I linked to above, I am leaving this comment as your official notice of the decision. Please take great care to ensure that further edits are no longer uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ioeth, for letting me know about this matter. I regret that I was unaware of the accuations until now. I would have liked to respond to them during the discussion. Perhaps it's just as well that I didn't know about it. I will however take your recommendations to heart. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't much discussion about you, per se. The report at WP:AE degenerated into a discussion about whether or not collecting evidence in regard ARBCOM cases is appropriate, which frankly I think is kinda silly. Anyway, I just found out that there's an actual template that I need to leave on your talk page here so I'm going to do that below. You can pretty much ignore it though, as it basically says what I said above. Thanks for responding, and please let me know if there's anything I can do for you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your inquiry if you can do anything for me. Yes. Please post the same template at the talk pages of User:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, User: Halibutt, and User:Molobo. It would be very appropriate and fair to do so. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)