User talk:Gzornenplatz

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Czechia vs. Czech Republic
Why are you against Czechia? It is a legal English word. People around me commonly use it and it begins to be used even in the official papers. You are right that the Czech Republic used to be used more often but it is changing.

[] Miraceti 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Which official papers? If you check Google News, you'll find 5,060 hits for "Czech Republic" and - count them - 3 (three) for "Czechia". Gzornenplatz 20:40, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * For examples official papers of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic (this is a political name of the ministry). The Czech Republic is a successor of political name Czechoslovak feerative republic. Czechia is a successor of Czechoslovakia.
 * It is not a problem of the name that journalists across the world are so lazy to go to the nearest Czech embassy and ask what is the name of the country. Wikipedia should come with a correct information. It is an advantage of Wikipedia that everybody can correct anybody else. Even when the majority is not right. Miraceti 18:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It is not official. Search Google for "czech republic" site:vlada.cz and you get 737 hits, "czechia" site:vlada.cz finds it only in the URL of an external link to www.czechia.com. Also, the word is in no English dictionary. Gzornenplatz 20:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is official since 1993.
 * Of course, you don't get good results on the official site of the Czech government.
 * Dictionaries are very conservative media. Try dict.cc (ENG-GER), Online-translator(ENG-RUS), Oxford Reference and Free ENG-CZ. Wikipedia also knows Czechia and this page is used even by some dictionaries, try Webster's online dictionary.
 * Result? You are wrong. It is a quite newly used word but it is a common word spreading more and more. Please, do not try to stop progress. Have you forgot? WikiWiki! Wikipedia can be very up-to-date if Wikipedians are up-to-date. Miraceti 22:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Centauri is Gene Poole
I personally do not think that Centauri is Gene Poole. For one, he does not have Gene Poole's attitude. For another, Atlantium is the only micronation page he has touched so far; he doesn't share Gene Poole's obsession with micronations.

Even if he is Gene Poole, I am willing to give him a second chance. As long as this user doesn't handle user who disagree with him by resorting to petty insults and name calling, and as long as this user doesn't handle disagreements via revert wars, everything should be OK. Samboy 09:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I retract my position. I have reason to believe, based on an argumentive paragraph posted by Centauri on this page, that this may be Gene Poole after all.  See the linked page for my reasoning.  Samboy 00:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

please take a look at the diffs on this page.
Requests_for_comment/Carrp. Kevin Baas | talk 22:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Britannica 16th edition
How is the 32-volume version that replaced the 28-volume 15th edition not the 16th edition?--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It still calls itself 15th edition, despite the increase in volumes. Even within the period 1974-85, it was revised every year, and likewise the 32-volume version was revised annually at first (only in the 1990s this was interrupted). So there are many different "15th editions". Gzornenplatz 05:02, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom case decided
Your arbitration case has been decided. You have been banned for one week, following which you will be subject to several paroles. →Raul654 10:28, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Potential block against you for violation of arbcom ruling
Hi Gzornenplatz, I left a comment on WP:RFPP to the effect that you may be banned for up to 56 days due to separate infractions of the arbcom ruling against you. You are welcome to comment. silsor 01:32, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back! Let me know when other admins are applying the Arbcom ruling inappropriately. Some of us do appreciate the scope of your contributions. 172 08:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * They were doing it just now and will probably continue it. According to the ruling I have every right to do one revert per day, which I intend to use in cases where discussion is hopeless because someone is trying to push a POV rather than editing in good faith. There is no issue where I have "refused to discuss" as the Arbcom wrongly claims (that was the whole basis of the ruling), so I would appreciate if you could unblock me if I'm blocked again. What makes it worse is that currently blocks don't expire automatically after the set time, and people like Silsor fail to remove their blocks in time when they are expired. (It seems the developers are more busy voting themselves money from Wikipedia funds while keeping their own numbers artificially low by not reaching out for volunteers which would surely be in abundance if they would actually ask or provide a method for requesting developership that does not involve licking the asses of the existing developers in the IRC channel etc. - leading to the abysmal performance of Wikipedia and the persistence of such simple bugs.) Gzornenplatz 06:19, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Gz, if you were the one querying me about the blocks, I don't usually use the blocking feature (one way or the other). I saw a lot of blocks that were really old with a yesterday expiration, and didn't want to begin mucking around until I found out why this was so. OTOH, if you weren't the one asking me, never mind. :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was me. Silsor finally unblocked me some three hours after I first notified him (although he was present). But it's not only me; I noted that the ipblocklist is full of other blocks that should have long expired but are still active. Any short block is currently de facto a permanent one. Gzornenplatz 06:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * You've been unblocked. It seems like the scheme to get you blocked for several months lost steam... BTW, send me an email at sokolov47@yahoo.com so that we can communicate off Wiki, if you want. 172 06:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Silsor just threatened a permanent ban, speaking no doubt for certain arbcom members... well, I guess that goes with the territory when you're (a) fighting POV pushers and (b) not respecting the cabal. Gzornenplatz 06:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * You feel harmed, don't you. Anyway, welcome back.
 * Also, I noticed you reverted the changes to country articles that moved the infoboxes from the main body of the article to a template. Why did you do so? It was a way to avoid the bug that enabled the images to cover the text below them. I believe there was still no update to the MediaWiki that corrected this problem and articles like, for instance, Belarus look strange after your reverts. Care to explain? Halibutt 08:28, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good on my screen. Where is an image covering the text? Moving the infoboxes out just makes it harder to edit them. Gzornenplatz 08:39, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stop doing this because I will revert you every time. I will go through List of countries everyday to convert all country tables into templates until I finish, and then I will closely check those pages if anybody removes the templates. &mdash;Cantus…  ☎   09:39, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll do the same, and the majority agrees with me on this question . Gzornenplatz 17:25, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

When you are barred from making a necessary revert, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. Also, I have something to propose if you care to send me an email. 172 09:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Bah, gentlemen, if the harder to edit the infobox is the only problem Gzornenplatz has, it's not a problem at all. Take a look at how I handled the infoboxes for Poland and Belarus - there's an easy way to add the editing option for all the tables and templates - just use the parameter and place it inside of the template. And please, stop reverting - unless of course that's your favourite sport. Halibutt 11:00, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Meta stuff like edit links has no business in the article proper unless it's optional like the section edit links. Gzornenplatz 17:02, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * And why is that? If you don't like it - you can create your own .css sheet with disabled template (or any other MediaWiki feature, be that your will) and use it. Other than that - there's no Wikipedia policy of not using templates. Do not force others to adopt your views or style. Halibutt 17:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * My view is in the majority (shared by at least Uriber, fvw, Golbez, mav), so it's rather you forcing others to adopt your views (shared, as far as I can see, only by Cantus and Jerryseinfeld). Gzornenplatz 19:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Will you please stop removing the country templates? Acknowlegde all the work that went behind making these templates and updating them to the newest format. And please try to see the usefulness in having these templates in the first place. You want Wikipedia to be easy to edit. To a lot of people it is not very inviting to see a bunch of alien code when they're trying to edit an article. Also take a look at WikiProject_Countries and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries. &mdash;Cantus… ☎   04:49, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not removing anything. I just paste the boxes directly into the article. Templates exist for a specific reason, which doesn't apply here. The "alien code" is what anyone who wants to edit the infobox will have to deal with anyway, what difference does it make whether it's in the main article or in a separate template page? And I don't see anything relevant to this issue in your two links, and certainly no consensus to use templates. Gzornenplatz 05:23, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Done. I just wish I were allowed to type "infinite" instead of 24 hrs. 172 12:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just blocked Lazyfair for 24 hours. Danny 04:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. He already has a new sockpuppet, User:Ground0. Gzornenplatz 04:53, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 6 months. Danny 04:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cantus
Cantus's use of sockpuppets has caused Danny and I to find find his ISP and block his IP range for six months. After that, if he returns, he is liable to appear before Arbcom again about his abuse of sockpuppets. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 07:20, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Country Infoboxes
I would like to know why you reverted all the changes to the country pages by manually adding the info table into them instead of using a template which is the current trend. If you cannot explain this to me, I am going to revert the versions back because you made no comments about why you were doing this. Páll 00:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What kind of argument is "it's the current trend"? Maybe the trend is changing. A few users started creating templates without establishing a consensus first. Others oppose it.  I think it's up to you to give a good reason for using templates here. The point of templates is to allow the use of the same text in multiple articles, but a country infobox is needed only in the  respective country article. Gzornenplatz 00:37, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but you went on a personal crusade and reverted the changes without asking anyone. Many users have since reverted your changes. You even reverted changes on pages that had been using formats for a long time without asking anyone. You need to generate concensus just as much as anyone. I'm watching you, if you continue to change this without seeking further concesus, I have no fear of protecting pages. Páll 00:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You have it quite backwards. It's you who needs to establish consensus, not me. There are only a few pages which had templates for a somewhat longer time, you can keep those if you insist. But the others were changed by a personal crusade of Cantus (and now you), without asking anyone. I'm reverting to the status quo ante. Gzornenplatz 00:58, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I quote from Revert: "Note that reverts are not appropriate if a newer version is no better than the older version. You should save reverts for cases where the new version is actively worse." You're going to have to justify why you think the new version is actively worse before you revert. Páll 03:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It says nothing about consensus there. It is actively worse in my opinion, and that's enough to justify me reverting it. Gzornenplatz 03:59, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

A solution
Instead of continuing this revert war, I think we should start a poll to solve this within the community. What do you think of this? Páll 04:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what you can do to try to establish a consensus. Until then, however, the articles should return to the established version that was undisputed for months if not years. Gzornenplatz 04:09, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Croatia with an external infotable was undisputed for more than half a year. --denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 23:02, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. First of all, it is you who has to proove concesus here because I have not heard one single person support your reverts enough to say they should continue. And just because your own opinion is that the current revisions is significantly worse than the current version is not enough to warrant your mass reverts. Páll 04:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Plenty of people spoke out against the templates on the Village Pump. They certainly don't want your reverts to continue. Gzornenplatz 04:20, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to make sure that everything was okay with Cantus. We blocked his ISP for 6 months. I don't know if the block will last that long, but at least it will send a serious message. If there are any problems please let me know, and I will do what I can to try and help. Danny 05:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please keep an eye out for Páll (User:PZFUN), who is about to block me. The arbcom has assured me I do not need to use the talk page for each page in a series when the issue is one and the same. Also, could you block Cantus' latest proxy 80.237.206.93? Gzornenplatz 05:17, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

A Final Statement
User:Gzornenplatz was blocked today for violations of the arbitration decision (Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision), which says "2) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours."

As can be seen in the table, Gzornenplatz has been repeatedly removing the country infobox template link, and replacing it with the full text. This has been done carefully at just over 24 hour increments (so as not to break that Arbitration ruling), but he has not discussed these edits on the relevant pages, nor abided by the consensus from many editors that his edits are not wanted, and this effort is creating an extra burden on other users. Rather than being constructive, he continues to push this particular agenda. As such, he is being blocked for one day for each offence listed here, for a total of 56 days. In reality, this only represents a portion of the edits, specifically only those articles he has reverted 2, 3, or 4 times. Many articles have been only reverted once by him in this way. Páll 06:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. I have obviously discussed the issue at various places, including right here, and don't have to repeat it on the talk page for each country article. Nor do I have to "abide" by the wishes of individual editors who have a different opinion on an issue. PZFUN has definitely not established a consensus for his view which goes counter to established tradition and is objected to by various people. He is also abusing his adminship position by blocking me for an edit war he was himself involved in. I trust reasonable admins will keep unblocking me. As they did (thanks!). Gzornenplatz 12:35, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't have to post it to all talk pages, simple explanation in edit summary would be enough. If you just silently rv without slightest note, don't be surprised that your edits are treated as vandalism; you can't expect people to read all your talk pages, and 'various places'. - JohnyDog 03:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Australia
is there a difference worth reverting?? doesnt seem like it to me. Xtra 12:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Some people want to move all country infoboxes to templates and are trying to force this without establishing a consensus first. See . And this particular edit was made by a blocked user using a sockpuppet, and as such should be reverted in any case. Gzornenplatz 12:35, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

This stuff should never be in a template. If editors are "frightened" of HTML, they probably shouldn't leave home.Dr Zen 07:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indian maps
I am concerned with the growing edits regarding maps of Indian states. You have reverted many state maps which depict a biased and incorrect map. The maps which depict the accuracy of the Kashmir territory administration should be depicted rather than the biased one. Please do not revert to the biased maps. Regards, Nichalp 20:36, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting the biased (Indian POV) maps to the neutral ones. It's Simonides who's doing the opposite. Gzornenplatz 22:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid you are wrong. The maps are not Indian POV. They are the most factually accurate maps present on wikipedia at this instant. The maps which you have reverted are biased and are not endorsed by the United Nations to be called a POV. Your maps depict the Line of Control to be the international border between India and Pakistan/China. This is totally incorrect. If needed I can point you to some references in this regard. But please do not revert images based on unreliable information. Nichalp 19:56, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Simonides' maps are biased, representing simply the Indian view by showing an international border between western Kashmir and Pakistan, but none between eastern Kashmir and India. The United Nations does not endorse either side's claims. Gzornenplatz 20:01, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Simon's maps at least make an effort to paint the areas of Kashmir administered by India/Pakistan/China. The maps that you reverted to as I mention depict the LoC as the International Boundary which is far from the truth. Nichalp 20:52, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * The line of control is obviously neutral. Nothing against painting those areas, but you can't put a one-sided boundary there which reflects only the Indian POV. I don't think the maps I revert to imply that the LoC is an undisputed international boundary. There are many boundary disputes in the world (e.g. Guyana/Venezuela), but they are not normally explicated in detail on small maps like this; it is good enough if the borders shown reflect the de facto situation. Gzornenplatz 21:10, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gzornenplatz, I don't know why you being so disputatious on this matter. This is not simply a boundary dispute. It involves thousands of square kilometres administered by countries hostile to each other. The magnitude of such a predicament cannot be compared to a border dispute such as Guyana/Venezuela or Russia/China. I would like to disabuse your myth as to why to the map is not an "Indian POV". The status quo of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is clearly defined with the border region and administered territory. This map is modelled on the one used by the BBC, which has maintained a strictly neutral viewpoint on the issue. The map depicts the truth and the current ground situation in Kashmir. It is factually accurate and is not misleading as compared to the reverted ones. The matter has been thoroughly debated here. Reverting the images solely based on argumentum ad homniem goes against the wikipedia spirit. I hope you are open to ratiocination as clearly your reverts go against the encyclopaedic information that wikipedia strives to achieve. Nichalp 19:06, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am ratiocinating all the time. You have not yet explained why the map should show an international border according to the Indian claim and none according to the Pakistani claim. Which BBC map are you talking about? Here is a BBC map that we can gladly take as a model. It clearly does not show a one-sided international border. It just shows the line of control and colours the disputed area. Gzornenplatz 19:16, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * So you only have a problem with the borders not the area under administration? incredulous! Why didn't you make it clear in the relavent talk pages or edit summaries? Give me a couple of days, I'll try and ask someone for some templates of the Indian states with the LoC made, modelled on the BBC map. Nichalp 20:53, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I said all the time the one-sided border is the problem. But it's not the only thing. It's also unacceptable to just label the areas "administered by Pakistan" and "administered by China" while not labeling the remaining area as "administered by India" (giving the impression that the Indian-administered part is undisputed). Gzornenplatz 21:15, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * The "adminstered by India" is clearly implied as it is the states of India, I don't why you want it labelled so. AND NO it is not a tacit endorsement of the "Indian part is undisputed" as you fear. What if I present you a map sans "Administered by India"; and the Loc/LoaC in a red or dotted line next week? Nichalp 20:47, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that it's administered by India is implied, but not that it's disputed by Pakistan. If you want to show the Indian claim to an area administered by Pakistan, you also have to show the Pakistani claim to an area administered by India. If you present a map sans "administered by India", it should be sans "administered by Pakistan" too. Just show the LoC as a dotted line. Gzornenplatz 20:52, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how is it a POV if "administered by India" is absent? The map is related to Indian states (an Indian theme), and it is ludicrous to print "administered by India" just for Jammu & Kaskmir, as it is clearly implied. The "administered by China/ Pakistan" tags serves as information that the area inside the original state boundaries are not governed by India although the territory is "claimed as a whole" as a part of India. The Loc strengthens this point. Nichalp 20:26, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just answered this already. It gives the impression that the Indian-administered part is not disputed. The point is that it is only administered by India, but not universally recognized as being part of India. Gzornenplatz 21:46, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * On what basis is the ludicrous claim that territory which is governed by India not "universally recognised"? Only elements in the Pakistani army and the political establishment refuse to believe that the above mentioned area is not under the jurisdiction of India. This claim of yours is absurd. 20:19, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is administered by India, but Indian sovereignty over it is disputed by Pakistan, just as Pakistani sovereignty over the other part is disputed by India (or, to use your language, "only by elements in the Indian army and the political establishment of India"). The world generally does not take either side's position, which is why maps are drawn using the LoC as boundary or designating both areas as "administered by India" and "administered by Pakistan", respectively. Gzornenplatz 20:56, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maps drawn depicting the LoC are false and biased. With the exception of a few cartographers, most depict the region with its unbiased boundaries and have an LoC to delineate India from Pakistan. Even the BBC when showing an India themed news item does not depict "Administered by India" for Kashmir if a Tamil Nadu news story is being aired. It shows the shaded regions of Pak-a-K; AC; and I-a-K as a part of India. The map which you showed was exclusive to Kashmir alone when aired on TV. Nichalp 20:38, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't have "administered by India", it doesn't have "administered by Pakistan" either. BBC treats the two sides equally, with a colouring based on LoC, sometimes with additional dotted lines for the outer borders on both sides   . Gzornenplatz 20:58, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The BBC isn't so callous regarding the maps when they air it on TV. Map 1 is unfit as it would seem the Aksai Chin region to be a separate nation. Map 2 is fine. Map 3 is a POV and Map 4 would be odd to colour Kashmir differently. I made a map of Sikkim ([IndiaSikkim.png]), which marks the LoC in red, the boundary of Kashmir in Pakistan and China in green and the IB in black. I stress that it is not a POV map as it doesn't colour the region as a part of India, but in a greyish shade. It is as good as the second image you provided me, so you shouldn't be having any problems. Nichalp 19:02, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't as good. Your map has a thick international boundary on the Pakistani side and a thin state boundary on the Indian side. The BBC map has dotted lines on both sides. (Also, I don't think the word "Sikkim" should appear twice in the map.) Gzornenplatz 19:55, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're being too exacting. The map is good enough for a state map, the coloured boundaries convey the necessary information. Why don't you propose a vote on the NPOV of the map in a forum? That way we can both be satisfied and the reverting madness will hopefully cease. Sikkim on top is the title of the image. Nichalp 20:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * If NPOV is too exacting for you, it is nevertheless policy. The map is not good enough, since the international boundary shown reflects simply the Indian POV and goes against the Pakistani one. Facts are not decided by votes. (Regarding the title, I don't think there should be a title of the image on the image itself. The word "India" should also be removed to maintain consistency with all the other country-subdivisional maps - I don't suppose you want to change hundreds of other maps to match your new style?) Gzornenplatz 21:58, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The IB is coloured black: Kashmir's borders are coloured green. The map is less of a POV than what you chose to revert to. I'm not stating that this is a total NPOV map; I'm saying for the time being it is much more NPOV that the ones you flaunt to be as "NPOV" on the basis of "Ground Situation". How can you say that the BBC's map is a 100% NPOV just because the boundary is marked as dotted; why can't it be coloured green as the map 1 you showed me, signifying that this is not the international boundary? Had the 1948 ceasefire not taken place it would have been the IB; as the UN resolution goes (Part IIB), in order for a plebescite to take place, Pakistan must withdraw from all areas under its occupation. India just has to reduce its forces. Voting would decide if you are being too exacting; when it is the most NPOV map we have. As for the title, I did not know that it was out of convention; your last remark was made in jest, was it? Catch up on Friday. Nichalp 17:43, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * A map is NPOV if the two sides are treated equally, which all the BBC maps I showed you as well as Morwen's maps do, and which yours and Simonides' maps don't. Simple as that. Feel free to signify in whatever way you want that the LoC is not a recognized international boundary. The point is that the outer borders are marked in the same way (both thick or both dotted or both green or whatever), and that the Indian- and Pakistani-administered parts are labeled the same way (either "administered by India" and "administered by Pakistan", or both unlabeled). Gzornenplatz 19:15, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. Given the vigilante tendency to disregard whatever you are saying just because you are saying it, when someone starts botherning you about the country infobox templates, it may be a good idea to direct that person to Mav's comments, since is is generally regarded as someone who speaks with a great deal of authority on these matters. 172 23:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the template v. infobox debate, a compromise seems to have been worked out at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries. It has already been applied to Netherlands. Please let me know what you think of it. It is a variable template, in which the information itself will reside in each country article. Danny 06:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's OK with me. What matters is that the information remains within the article. Gzornenplatz 07:50, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Revert war over infobox template
Would you please settle the issue with infobox template first, instead of reverting articles back and forth? --Gene s 10:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue is settled. There's only a blocked user (Cantus) who keeps reverting with sockpuppets. Gzornenplatz 10:43, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * The summary field is a good place to provide a link to a page where it is settled or discussed. All I see is a bunch of people reverting Russia and Estonia without giving any meaningful reasons in the summary. Silent reverts are bad. --Gene s 10:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * With the volume of reverts in this case, it's not very practical to fill the summary field every time. Please refer to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries. Gzornenplatz 11:03, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * i have read up and i now support your actions. Xtra 13:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi, Edit summary says "Always fill the summary field." (emphasis in the original). Please fill in the Edit Summary when you edit an article, so the rest of us don't have to resort to a "diff" to see what you did. Thanks! Noel (talk) 12:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nationalist POV-pushers
I know that you have a lot of experience dealing with nationalist editors. Could you take a look at Polish-Soviet War? I've used my three reverts in attempting to deal with them. Thanks. 172 22:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting those additional mistakes, especially the wrong date for the founding of the Soviet Union. I must've overlooked that. 172 22:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

country infoboxes
Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

voting: Country_infobox_vote

Thanks. &mdash; Davenbelle 02:28, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Polish cities and German names
What is the reason you mass-removed German names for Polish cities (like Glog%F3w)? I am very curious as let Czech name still in. Pavel Vozenilek 21:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Those "German names" are not generally used any more in German, however when I previously tried to call them "former German names" this was endlessly reverted by a group of people with an axe to grind, and Jimbo himself proposed this unwieldy explanatory paragraph (which I have put into a template) as a compromise. I assume the Czech names are still common in Czech usage, so I'm not changing them. Gzornenplatz 21:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * So you need to rip off more. Hlohov (Glog%F3w) is old name, not in current usage. It is only used in historical texts and novels about history. Probably the only Czech name widely used is Kladsko (Klodzko) (+ big cities not in vicinity of Czech Republic).


 * It is quite common to add German or Polish names to Czech cities Wiki, where known. It helps a lot with search and hyperlinking.


 * OK, I'll take that into account. Gzornenplatz 22:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really, I've also seen roadmarks mentioning Vratislav. Halibutt 03:51, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * The guy said non-major cities. Wroclaw is a major city, like Krakov. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.53.133 (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you take a look at Template talk:Polishcity? Halibutt 07:33, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein
Reverting the addition of a disambiguation link, marking it as minor, giving a wrong edit summary (format), and not commenting on it on the talk page is a violation of your parole (see Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily). Please don't do that again, or you may be blocked. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:09, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not any removal is a revert, it was a minor edit, and it was a formatting edit, and it was not worthy of commenting on the talk page; someone was manifestly misunderstanding how disambiguation works (someone who goes to an article like "Einstein on the Beach" is obviously looking for just that article, and not for "Albert Einstein"; the disambiguation is only needed on Albert Einstein, because Einstein redirects there). Gzornenplatz 11:06, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Indian map again
Did you see my comments on the admin board? What do you think about this version of the map? OneGuy 07:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * OK with me. (Only the number for Sikkim seems to be lost under the China colouring.) Gzornenplatz 19:45, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I fixed the number in Image:IndiaNumbered.png OneGuy 20:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Temp injuction
Gz - the arbitration committee has issued a temp injuction, instructing admins not to block you as a reincarnation of Wik, while we sort the case out (your other paroles still apply, however). →Raul654 21:34, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

New ArbCom case opened
"This case is to determine whether Gzornenplatz is Wik and if the ban that applies to the latter should be applied to the former."

See Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz. Present evidence at Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz/Evidence. --mav 23:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you could make a personal statement on the Arbitration case, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Neutralitytalk 05:53, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

formatting
I dont understand what are you doing ??

why are you writing "German" form capital letter.....????!! its not a Germany !!!...

and why you removing BRs?Vorash 08:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And why you removing link to Michael Cretu ??


 * If you don't know proper English, don't edit the English Wikipedia, or at least don't revert those who know. Also, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia conventions like "link only once". Gzornenplatz 08:08, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well i didnt find any "Wikipedia convention "link only once".There is no such a convention !! There is a guidance about "avoiding excessive repeating of the same link", but no such a rule "link only once".Vorash 09:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * and why you removing BRs?Vorash 10:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * YOu intenionally want make an article to look ugly ??? If this is the case i will complain to the admimistration !!!!Vorash 10:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries/encyclopaedias
Hi, I have just noticed on the encyclopaedia page an entry described a dictionary. There is a great overlap of content between books having either word in their titles, so I have in mind to re-work the dictionary pages to the same format we have for the encyclopaedia pages namely with lists of them sorted by centuries and within each century sorted by type. As usual I am so busy I have not had time to do anything about it. Do you have a view please about this proposal, which is meant to make a user-friendly layout between the two pages. I got the idea from the Architecture pages. Cheers Apwoolrich 11:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I think "dictionaries" that are encyclopedic in nature should be listed under encyclopedia (or List of encyclopedias), while the dictionary article should treat with dictionaries in the narrower sense, i.e. books that mainly explain words rather than facts. Gzornenplatz 11:13, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Your User page
I've protected your User page because it's being repeatedly vandalized tonight. If you want me or some other sysop to unprotect it, you can leave a message on my Talk page, or ask any other sysop and they'll do it for you. RickK 07:18, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling
The case against you has closed. It is the decision of the Arbitration Committee that the hard ban previously applied to your account, Wik, also applies to this account. You are reminded that you may appeal the ban to Jimbo Wales or to the Arbitration Committee, via e-mail, IRC, or other means of contact outside of Wikipedia. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:32, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Please see also List of banned_users where the ban has been fully listed -- sannse (talk) 02:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just read about the ruling and I'm very disappointed by it. It reflects the unfortunate punitive mentality of some users, who apply that even against users who do such good work as yourself. I hope you will try to appeal the ruling. Everyking 10:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of colonial governors in 2005
I just copied the info from List of colonial governors in 2004 to List of colonial governors in 2005 but haven't verified or updated any of the information (except I removed a 2005 leader that had creeped into the 2004 list -- see page history). Would you like to work on the new page? (Rhetorical question.) - dcljr (talk) 20:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for adminship
I just realised I never thanked you for your vote on my Request for Adminship. Thank you. Dmn / Դմն 12:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Biography
I'm having some issues on John Vanbrugh. People keep removing the infobox! I think it's quite useful as it does take some hunting to find information about birth places, birth dates and death dates/places in many of the articles. Could you comment on the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls
Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Why?
Why care enough to burn but not enough to play the game? If you read this, email me at freddyvessant AT gmail DOT com. I'd be interested to know. -- Grace Note

Image:Sea of ice.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sea of ice.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Chilean edits
Hello,, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. J A X HERE | T a l k 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating "Kerosene (disambig)" for deletion
Please note: I am nominating Kerosene (disambig) for deletion. You are shown in the history as having edited this page. If you wish to object, check the details by clicking the link above.

Regards, JohnI 10:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gnu/communism Afd
FWIW, the Gnu/communism article is proposed for deletion. Gronky 17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sébastien Briat
A "" template has been added to the article Sébastien Briat, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Haemo 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of The Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time places
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time places, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time places is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time places, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did you learn about Banyan VINES?
I used to be a VINES engineer. I've expanded the article to talk about early adoption - multi-nationals and US DOD. SimonATL (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Jeff Wilson (Cartoonist)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jeff Wilson (Cartoonist), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jeff Wilson (Cartoonist) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jeff Wilson (Cartoonist), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wassily de Basil
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wassily de Basil, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? B.Wind (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jose Torres
A tag has been placed on Jose Torres requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Frank Honeywell
A tag has been placed on Frank Honeywell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Steve CarlsonTalk 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

roque now
Hi, I noticed you edited the roque article. Any chance you're actually a roque player? I've just started the project of restoring a roque court, and wondered if you happened to have any information on where I could find court maintanance tools, balls, mallets... anything, really. — eitch 23:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Gzornenplatz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Péter Kiss -

Deletion discussion about Meralda Warren
Hello, Gzornenplatz, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Articles for deletion/Meralda Warren whether the article Meralda Warren should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Meralda Warren, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of James Hatfield for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Hatfield is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/James Hatfield until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- LWG talk 01:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Napoleão Laureano


A tag has been placed on Napoleão Laureano requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Natureium (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Napoleão Laureano


A tag has been placed on Napoleão Laureano requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)