User talk:Loosmark/Archive 1

Kubica
Fair enough - actually we might almost cut that bit altogether, as it doesn't really have much to do with Schumacher. Just a thought. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i was thinking the same thing. Loosmark (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

i've just checked the Trulli-Kubica collision isn't even mentioned on Trulli's page so it should definitely go from Ralf's page Loosmark (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"In the next 3 races both Sauber BMW drivers finished outside the points again." info from this sentence is also in the table below. Maybe you could delete this one as well? Regarding usage of "miserable", I believe for a driver of Kubica's quality and BMW reputation, 13th and 14th places are miserable result and this is not influenced by my personal view. We could call it "poor" or "bad", but not "respectable" or "good" results. So, I think you're just wasting my and yours time trying to prove your point, when in fact you did nothing to contribute to the quality of the article. Best regards... Satellite779 (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Japanese minelayer Itsukushima
I have nominated Japanese minelayer Itsukushima, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Japanese minelayer Itsukushima. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. &mdash; Ceran  thor  [Formerly] LordSunday] 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)  &mdash;  Ceran  thor  [Formerly] LordSunday] 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Japanese minelayer Okinoshima
I have nominated Japanese minelayer Okinoshima, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Japanese minelayer Okinoshima. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. &mdash; Ceran  thor  [Formerly LordSunday] 19:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)  &mdash;  Ceran  thor  [Formerly LordSunday] 19:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. I know you're unhappy about how the consensus has gone, but blanking the page, was not neccessary at all. D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * i have not done that at least not on purpose and i don't understand how could have that happened accidentaly either as i wasn't copying or doing anything with the text. Loosmark (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Grzegorz Gajewski
A tag has been placed on Grzegorz Gajewski 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

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.  RGTraynor  20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jana Jacková
A tag has been placed on Jana Jacková 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 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 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. Bongo matic  05:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Voluntary agreement
Do you accept the terms outlined with respect to you here? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jana Jacková
I have nominated Jana Jacková, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Jana Jacková. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bongo matic  08:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jana Jacková
I removed the hangon tag since the article was not subject to speedy deletion. You can argue the deletion, by clicking the link in the Articles for deletion box on the top of the article. (Such discussion is not available for speedy deletions, so that's what the tag is for) - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland
You've a reply waiting there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked
Loosmark: From Date formatting and linking poll, quoting you I don't understand this poll at all. can somebody please tell me how can I vote against all date links?. Since you asked… I too am opposed to linking. However, from previous RfCs on this subject (1, 2, and 3), it was clear that the community consensus was that there were some instances where date linking would be permissible. The proponents of option #1 for month-day and option #1 for year came up with that wording as it comes closest to no linking. Greg L (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i was unaware of this previous RFCs but in my opinion option 1 still sucks a bit. why? because apart from the date links being useless there is also the risk that everybody will have their own interpretation what "some" is. but anyway thank you for explaining me their reasons for the lack of "no links" option. Loosmark (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Loosmark, I, too, am against just about any linking of month-day or year links. We probably should have included this option in the poll, but it is too late now. Those who feel this way can simply say so in their vote comment wherever they vote. Tony   (talk)  03:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that such a large oversight was made, but we cannot do anything about it. The community simply will not accept another RfC on this issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Kubica
If you think this: "The incident meant that Kubica understeered into a wall because of lack of downforce from front wing" is worthy of inclusion in a wikipedia article, then you might want to discuss your edits before making them - it is bad English and actually pretty meaningless. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is undeniable, no matter who says it. If you could discuss this rather than get involved in an edit war with two different editors, that would be best. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your picky edits to Robert Kubica are very unhelpful. You do not own this article, and when someone makes a decent edit to it, it is better if you do not just change it slightly without any real purpose. It is blindingly obvious that the front wing was damaged, otherwise it wouldn't be stuck under the car. Maybe English is not your first language, in which case I advise against making edits using the finer points of English. Also, your refusal to discuss this is a pretty poor show. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

it is not blindingly obvious the front wing was damaged, especialy not for the casual reader who doesn't follow F1 too much anyway and most certainly adding the word "damaged" doesn't hurt the article in any way. i would also like to ask to stop with your agressive tone: (speculating about my English, accusing me of owning the article, ridiculing my edits etc etc). i find your mentor's tone very unpleasant and harrassing. if you want to discuss the edits then make a post about it on the talk page of the article which is the proper page to discuss the edits. Loosmark (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) If it's stuck under the car, I'm afraid it is blindingly obvious. You don't have to follow the sport at all to realise that. If you think my tone is aggressive, then that's your business. If you want to avoid editors getting irate with you, then I suggest entering the discussion when one is started, wherever it is started. Ignoring talk page messages is a long way from polite, particularly if you then come in with your accusatory stuff. I don't know what you mean by "mentor's tone", but I am entitled to ridicule your edits if they follow the line of repeatedly reinserting an edit, as detailed above, in very poor English. Equally, it's not a huge leap to make then that English is not your first language. If it is, then I take that back. I started the discussion here because I originally had issue not with the nature of your edits, but the fact that you seemed to be ready to start an edit war with me and AyrtonProst, whose original edit was perfectly fine. You don't need to tell me where to start a discussion, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * what is wrong with having "damaged front wing" instead of just "front front"? IMO nothing at all, you are probably just a bit angry because you want to have it your own way. i'm sorry but at this moment it is just my opinion vs yours. if you really have a problem with "damaged front wing" (instead of just "front wing") why don't you ask the other editors about it on the talk page. if others prefer your formulation too then thats fine with me and i won't change it anymore. Loosmark (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, so what's the difference between me accusing you of just wanting your own way, and then you doing the same thing? I think the difference is you getting your knickers in a twist and not me. Secondly, no - the original edit was my edit, without the word 'damaged'. If you want to add that utterly pointless word, then you take it to discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you just re-add it anyway? This says a lot about you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * well it was you who came on my talk with an agitated tone and not the other way around. i don't get why are you so much against "damaged wing" but if you really want to have it your way so much then have it i don't care. Loosmark (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I came here because you were just reverting other editors, and reverting to a version which was, frankly, rubbish. If I got agitated it was because you didn't engage in discussion. I am against "damaged wing" because I believe it is a low-quality edit, the like of which is all too common. Obviously it's damaged because it's stuck under the car, no longer attached to the front. To say it's damaged is moronically obvious. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is "moronically obvious" for you maybe but for me it is not, the difference is that i don't ridicule your view. But anyway since i rewrote section in question the way you suggested and after the last edit the word damaged isn't there anymore can we now close this discussion? I have my own view who started to missbehave and you have yours. I don't think there is much more say. Loosmark (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not ridiculing you personally, in case you were thinking that. We probably do have differing views on who started to misbehave, and that's because you think it's okay to ignore a discussion when it has been started, and I don't. I agree that there's not much more to say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out just because Vettel got a penalty from the FIA does not mean it was his fault in the whole at all. Have you considered the fact nearly all of F1's major pundits, and wider fanbase believe Kubica also had some blame to take? Do you believe in Spa, 08, that Hamilton unfairly took a place from Raikkonen just because the FIA said he did? Get real, the sport's governing body is not infallible... Ayrton   Prost sign 11:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * what i or any other editor think about whois fault the accident was is irrelevant because wikipedia isn't a place for our personal opinions. the fact is that the government body of sport found Vettel responsable for the accident and thats that. as a side note: immediately after the crash Vettel said on the radio something like that he's an idiot and said sorry to the team. Loosmark (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it should say that the FIA found that it was his fault, with a reference - it should not just simply state that it was his fault. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. Loosmark (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton
You're kidding me, right? It says in the reference that he was "aquaplaning all over the place". Do you even know what aquaplaning is? I suggest you revert back to the referenced version. I'd hate to think you were starting an edit war over this, because it's beginning to look that way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

stop your using language like "you are kidding" and "do you even know". if you are trying to bully me you are losing your time. i know very well what aquaplaning is but there is no prove that he was spining due to aquaplaning he's only claiming it. in general drivers like to find excuses for their errors and besides this is the same guy who not so long ago claimed that he did not let Trulli pass in Aussie. remember that? Loosmark (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me what language to use, and if you accuse me of bullying you once more, I'll take this further. I am questioning your edit. Do you want me to find an independent quote that he was aquaplaning? Do you actually believe that he made a mistake, a driver error, each time he spun? Spun on a white line? I'm honestly interested. This bears absolutely no comparison whatsoever to the Australian race - moreover, I believe it is clear to anyone watching the race that he was aquaplaning, and I doubt that anyone else would even need a cite. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are questioning my edit do it in a polite way and respectful way. you are not allowed to use rude language on wikipedia. and take "this" further if you so wish i have no problems with that. now to answer your question yes i believe he might have made a driver error, he was just pushing too hard. Kovalainen in the same car had no spins. and no it is not clear to anyone watching that race that he was aquaplaning, just read F1 forums. Loosmark (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have used no rude language to you whatsoever, I would ask you to retract that accusation or show me this "rude language". Hamilton spun several times, and you think each spin was driver error? You don't think his tyres were more worn than Kovalainen's, as they usually are, due to his driving style? What have F1 forums got to do with anything? They have no place here. I ask again, will you "allow" an independent cite? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * coming to somebody's talk page starting the discussion with "you must be kidding" IS rude. i don't know what was the reason Hamilton spun several times however there is absolutely no prove that each and every spin he had was due to acquaplaning. are you claiming that all spins in wet are caused by acquaplaning? never seen a driver just applying to much throttle? regarding the F1 forums you claimed that it was clear to everybody watching the race the he was acquaplaning. it wasn't - it wasn't to me and it wasn't to many people who watched the race and posted comments in F1 forums. regarding Kovalainen, i don't know maybe Hamilton's style is harder on tyres and maybe not we just don't know it and if you'd cared to read the reference you provided it isn't clear to Hamilton himself either: he said that "maybe" is his style meaning he isn't sure himself. Loosmark (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't agree - it was a straight question. "Rude language" is an entirely different thing. Secondly, I was not claiming that every spin was due to aquaplaning, but that he had spins due to aquaplaning - not the same thing. Yes, he may well have contributed to his spins by using too much throttle, but this is not particularly typical of him, (and I can't stand the guy). What people say on F1 forums is of no interest to me - in my long experience, 90% of people watching F1 are pretty clueless about it, and about 95% are horribly biased, and no, I'm not including you in that. We do know Hamilton's style is harder on tyres, it's been shown many times, and Kovalainen is particularly easy on tyres. Thanks for suggesting I hadn't read the reference I'd provided - do you really think I hadn't read it? That's quite funny. Hopefully you find the current version of the article to your taste - it is more accurate to say that Hamilton himself blamed aquaplaning, as you pointed out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i'm not enterily convinced that Hamilton is harder on tyres particulary in the wet, for example Silverstone 2008 Kovalainen 'destroyed' his tyres while Hamilton's were still quite ok. but anyway the current version of the article is good. Loosmark (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking
I have noticed that you are making many edits to different pages delinking dates. This type of editing is in violation of a temporary injunction passed by the Arbitration Committee: Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking in reference to an ongoing case. Please do not continue to delink dates, as such behavior will be met with a block for violating the injunction. -MBK004 16:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers
Please see my comment at WT:SHIPS about the converted merchantmen. These are valid aircraft carriers IMHO as they saw front-line service. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

 * thank you Piotrus. Loosmark (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BABEL
Please consider using the language knowledge userboxes; I don't know if you can understand Polish - thus I don't know if I should give you link to Polish articles of interest? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland (1939)
Why you undid my change of caption text? The file's name is "Schleswig Holstein firing Gdynia 13.09.1939.jpg". --Ukas (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well how do you know it's the Schleswig Holstein firing on Gdynia on 13.09.1939? Loosmark (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The uploader of the file informed in Commons the source, original date of the file and what is happening in the photo. --Ukas (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw the trouble of viewing several pictures and some film footage about SMS Schleswig Holstein during the Polish offensive and I must say that it's prolly I who was wrong. By comparing the surroundings of the ship in the pic to other pictures it certainly looks like it's in Gdansk. Ships guns are lowered down to shoot direct fire, so it must be that it's firing at target which is close - that would be Westerplatte. If the ship would be firing at Gdynia from Gdansk, it's guns would point more upwards for indirect shots. Besides, according to what I've read, the battleship had stopped bombarding Gdynia by september 12th, so sept. 13th is out of the question. Either the uploader or the source was wrong. I'll write about it in Commons. --Ukas (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I also remember that I saw that pic in some book captioned as Schleswig Holstein firing on Westerplatte. Loosmark (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Off wiki questions
Have you been in contact with Molobo off-wiki? -- Avi (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope I haven't, not with Molobo nor anybody else. Since I wasn't calling any shots during the Molobo investigation thats also pretty irrelevant isn't it? Loosmark (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments about SPI
Making edits on behalf of banned users is counter to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whilst Molobo may not be officially banned now, having people make improper and unfounded allegations on his behalf may be considered further evidence of disruptive tendencies on his part and on the parts of those who are acting, intentionally or unintentionally, as his proxy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social club, and editing privileges are predicated on agreeing to abide by its policies and guidelines. At this point, I see you casting unfounded aspersions on the work of the clerks, admins, and checkusers at WP:SPI people and not trying to enhance the project. The only appropriate option now is to file a formal claim with the members of the BASC or possibly ask for admin advice on WP:ANI. Further personal attacks, be they overt or covert, may be interpreted as a disregard for wikipedia's policies and guidelines and may result in measures having to be taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear: I'm not making edits on nobody's behave other than my own. Also contrary to what you say my main interest is exclusively to enhance the project and to make sure that any future complex cases/investigations will be conducted in the best possible way. The reason I didn't start any formal claim is I've limited experience with investigations, in fact this is the first case i followed so closely, and i'm still trying to understood what rules govern it and what are the established practises. If you feel that you have to any measures against me do it I have no problems with that. Loosmark (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to malke it clear, I made the decision, not AdjustShift. I discussed the case with checkuser clerks (mainly Nixeagle) and members of ArbCom due to its complexity, but neither Scurinæ nor AdjustShift. I did not know any of you prior to my assumption of the case, so I do not think any allegations of partiality are appropriate. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point you have 3 choices: Please choose one of them. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Bring the issue up on WP:ANI
 * 2) File a request for review at WP:BASC
 * 3) Drop the issue

Removing of cited information in Wielun article
Dear Loosmark, you have reverted a large mass of cited material added to article, with no reason given, despite having been a participant to the discussion about it on the talk page of Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II, and at which there were no objection about the sources. Could you clarify why you have removed the material with no appearant reason given (preferable on the article talk page), and why you added very uncivil comment your edit? Kurfürst (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes i can, dear Kurfürst. It was because you were POV-pushing unproper sources. Until the discussion on the controversial sources is finished stop with that practise as it is highly provokative. Loosmark (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Loosmark, unless you participate in that discussion, its very difficult to discuss your objections. 'POV-pushing unproper sources' - is very generic, and it seems there is an agreement by other editors that the used source (Poeppel etc.) is fine reliable secondary source. You have presented no objections then. If you choose not to take part in the discussion, it will only mean that a consensus will be formed without you. It seems to me that your objection was emotialal based 'I dont like it' arguement - ie. your edit note was 'controversial my ass'. So please note your specific objections. Kurfürst (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have all day to discuss every single of your source-missuse to push your POV. Loosmark (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Yamashio Maru/Yamashiro Maru
You moved the article Japanese Aircraft Carrier Yamashiro Maru to Japanese aircraft carrier Yamashio Maru - stating that the move was "correcting the name of the ship" - what is the source for this different name as both Chesneau in Aircraft Carriers of the World and Gardiner and Chesneau in Conway's All The World's Fighting Warships 1922–1946 give the name as Yamashiro Maru?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They got it wrong because they have no idea how to read the kanji. Anyway my source is "Japanese Warships at the of world war II" by Shizuo Fukui. Loosmark (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please add this ref to the article and cite the name?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * yes. Loosmark (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

!
[]--Jacurek (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you for bringing it to my attention. Loosmark (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert anymore today. Thansk--Jacurek (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * okay. Loosmark (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Specific objections to revised, extended Poland section
I have created a new section where you can discuss your specific objections to the new extended Poland section over Strategic bombing during World War II discussion page in the BRD proccess. Please do not abuse the rollback feature (it seems to me you had problems with that feature and it was taken away from you) but try to discuss your objections first. Also, note that removing such amount of carefully researched and referenced edits is, IMHO, borderlines vandalism, to it was probably an error on my part to describe it as such. My sincere apolgies for this comment. Kurfürst (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no rollback feature so i don't what the hell are you inventing again. The edits removed weren't carefully researched but rather a most blatant POV pushing against a consesus reached by most editors. Loosmark (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I may be mixing you up with another editor who tended to abuse this feature, my apologies. Any specific concerns? We have seen such vague comments from you many times, but you never address the specific edits and their contents. Kurfürst (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I explained you the "concerns" very specificaly on the talk page. You are using the sources selectively leaving out things which you don't like and overblowing every fact which you feel appologies the terror bombings. There other concerns already discussed on the talk page. Loosmark (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Okun
Read the whole article - it follows: ''The BISMARCK gets "the low end of the stick" in these outer belt armor comparisons against any foreign battleship of its era! However, we are not done with analyzing the side protection, because there is more waterline armor to many of these ships than their outer belt. and the final conclusion in the end of the article: Similar computations with British 14-16" projectiles concerning hitting the sloped 4.33" deck after going through the 12.6" belt gave identical results. Even the 18.1" (46 cm) guns on the IJN YAMATO would have had to be placed directly against the side armor of the BISMARCK to have even a chance of penetrating that sloped deck. The German designers had done a very good job in this one protection area! ..... FINAL CONCLUSION: The BISMARCK's internal vitals could not be directly reached through the side belt armor under any normal circumstances due to the sloped "turtle-back" armored deck design, making its design the best of all given in this article for this purpose.''

While the belt could be pierced at longer ranges, there were armor behind it: a sloped deck of 110-120 mm thickness right behind the belt. This would be needed to be penetrated too so that a projectile could enter into the magazines or machinery. But it simply could not be done. It would reject any projectile at any range into the ships upper works above the main armor deck, where you don't find anything of importance, only laundry rooms and crew quarters. Kurfürst (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't stop there and read the article further:

However, there are several costs for this:

(1) Due to the main armored deck's low position in the ship, extensive flooding of the ship above the sloped/flat armored deck is likely if the side armor is holed, which could cause serious stability problems and which reduced protected reserve bouyancy by one complete deck

''(2) The upper hull area can be destroyed at much longer ranges than any other design due to the weak side belt armor. Furthermore, some important equipment, cables, etc. were in this region, compromising the effectiveness of the protection to some (possibly critical) extent''

(3) The weak lower main deck armor design -- especially the close-range zone of vulnerability after the projectile penetrated the 1.97" weather deck and was deflected downward through the thin 3.15" main armor deck over the amidships region -- allowed the possibility of reaching the vitals by hits that were deflected off of other structures, such as barbettes, or which hit "shot traps" where ricochet was inhibited (such as where a solid object was bolted to the armor deck and the projectile hit the joint, requiring the projectile to lift the solid object up or to punch through it in order to ricochet)

(4) The requirement for a rather heavy upper side hull armor belt to protect the thin main armor deck from side hits above the main armor belt, which costs considerable weight that could be used to beef up the deck armor or belt armor or both

(5) Unlike the USS SOUTH DAKOTA (and USS IOWA) or the VITTORIO VENETO, the BISMARCK's side armor does not ensure that a completely penetrating projectile is virtually always shattered and rendered "ineffective" by being decapped prior to hitting the face hardened belt armor, which reduces the damage that the projectile will usually case even if it does not penetrate through the belt

(6) The armored transverse bulkheads at each end of the Citadel were weakly protected and had no sloped deck behind them, making the BISMARCK very vulnerable to raking fire from either end, especially as the main magazines were located directly behind these bulkheads

(7) The shallow extension of the belt allowed hits below it to frequently occur, as was demonstrated during the fight with the HMS Prince of Wales, bypassing the main armor belt and aggravating any flooding effects that projectiles punching through the belt above the low main armored deck might cause

7 negative points!! It clearly indicates that it wasn't worth. Loosmark (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fischer edit
Hi I saw your comments on the matter but I didn't see an answer to the original question " Does the Kraktoa edit seen here, have Impartial tone concerns? " I would like very much to hear from you if you think that this edit belongs in the article or not. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Impartial tone concerns? I'm not sure what exactly do you mean by that. If your question is whatever that info that Kraktoa added should be in the Fischer article or not then my answer is that I have no idea. Loosmark (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish Corridor
Dear Loosmark,


 * you inserted: The German politicians referred to this area as the corridor directly matched to a source which simply says nothing about it. The term "Corridor" was in fact already used by the NYTimes in March 1919 (Footnote 5)
 * the ethnic composition is already mentioned in an extra section, so it's rather redundant to mention it here once more.
 * the headline Establishment of the corridor is perfectly describing the section's content, while Poland regains independence is rather an emotional and unencyclopaedic headline.
 * be more sensitive in the usage of the term "Propaganda". HerkusMonte (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened after the First World War was not that the "establishment of a the corridor" but rather that Poland become an independent country again. The territory in question had a majority of Polish population and it was known as the Pomeranian Voivodeship. Refering to the a part of Polish territory as a "corridor" is simply insulting and it is a term that Hitler and the Nazi proganda machine used extensively. Loosmark (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you going to remove the sentence falsely attributed to a source? HerkusMonte (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not insert the source there. It is removed now. Loosmark (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Find sources for your edits instead of removing sources not backing your claims.HerkusMonte (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already asked you what exactly is disputable and needs to be sourced? Loosmark (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

AE thread
Your recent editing behaviour is subject to an AE thread I opened: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice
Based on analysis of Skäpperöd evidence on AE: I think you are reverting too much; try to adopt a voluntary 2RR approach. If you keep going close to 3RR too much, this creates an impression of edit warring (in fact, it is edit warring if done long enough). Also, remember to respect AGF/CIV/NPA, even if your opponents do not. Bottom line: keep it cool, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Massacre of Lviv professors
Hi Loosmark, that is o.k. Not “biggie”. Please focus on more important things such as Expulsion of Germans controversy etc. I think that this is the real problem right now. I tghout that we are getting all together with German and Polish editors somewhere on that pages but now I think that all has turned into something unreal. I'm slowly loosing all remaining faigth in realibiliety of Wikipiedia...It is all about who wins favours or sucsesfully manipulates people in charge (administrators). I'm so dissaponted...Good luck to you with that dispute.--Jacurek (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Jacurek, thanks. Suffice is to say that share your concerns about Wikipedia (I prefer not to say anything more). Loosmark (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions
Notice: Under the terms of Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Editors are cautioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia that approaches its subjects from a neutral point of view. While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. Editors are further cautioned that when a change to an article becomes contentious, such as through a few early reverts or a strong objection on the talk page, they should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page until a compromise or consensus is reached. Use the content dispute resolution mechanisms including content request for comment, request for third opinion, mediation, or the content noticeboard. Reverting without discussion is very bad. Reverting during discussion is almost as bad, as it shows disrespect to the editors participating in the discussion. Thatcher 11:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Restored
Dear Loosmark, I've restored your comment on my talk page with an edit summary ''Restore Loosmark's comment. Loosmark was not trolling; I erroneously thought that he was trolling.''

During the WW2, the German military was responsible for the crimes. Not all the German military were involved, but most of them were involved. I think using "the German military" instead of "the Germans" can solve the problem.

Happy editing! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, AdjustShift. I made further comments on the use of 'German military' on you talk page. Loosmark (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Loosmark, see this. I accept that you are a good-faith editor, but please remember that sometimes dispute can take place on WP. There was a misunderstanding between you and me. It was a minor dispute, so let's move on. Happy editing! AdjustShift (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Look to be honnest I'd would describe what happened a bit differently than you do. But anyway, you are right, lets move on. Happy editing to you too! Loosmark (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Awarding a PSI

 * Thank you :) Loosmark (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans / Warsaw
An RfC has opened about this issue at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Loosmark (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Massacres
Thanks a lot m8!--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :) . Loosmark (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Past imperfect, present tense
Dear Lookmark, I thought that the past disagreements were over. Since the disagreements, I've tried to normalize relationship. See this, this, and this. Trying to settle old issues by unjustly criticizing someone is not a right approach. AdjustShift (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * AdjustShift i'm very puzzled by your comment, for some reason you seem to asume bad faith. My only concern in this case was that you showed a lack of understanding what constitutes edit-warring and there is risk that will be a bad example for others. Loosmark (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you move the article?
Because the title of the articles were incorrect, pre-war P.Z.L. products used the acronym as spelt here and didn't use hyphens, these are modern untruths.Petebutt (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * go to Cynk, Jerzy B.. “Polish Aircraft 1893 – 1939”. London, Putnam. 1971. ISBN 0 370 00085 4, this book is the original version of your poorly translated book from 1977. Jerzy went to great lengths to find the correct designation formats for pre-war polish aircraft, as will become evident when you read the book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See: discussion about changes and PZL.. Report there forthwith! LOL. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Nawratil
I've reposted the matter to the BLP board:. Thanks!radek (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  06:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your test
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. UweBayern (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ingo Haar
hello loosmark, i think one can find both numbers of death victims in the article: "Both the population balance figures, in the range of 2 to 3 million,[93][94][96][101][109] as well as the number of verified deaths in the range of 500,000 to 600,000, are cited in current discussions.[96][101]" would you agree, that this is an acceptable wording and that it gives credit to both ways of thinking? best regards. Kalifat (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion Haar's conclusions are the correct ones, so the current wording, while not perfect, is acceptable from my point of view. Loosmark (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Skaperod continues
Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, i've noticed he re-wrote the article massively. Loosmark (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi
Can you provide a cite for the pop culture reference in this article? Otherwise I'm likely to delete it as I'm trying to get it promoted. Thanks in advance. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Free City of Danzig
Dear Loosmark,

you added a comment to talk:Free City of Danzig adressed to me and an IP, calling the lastest edits "shocking nationalistic POV". If you'd take a closer look at the edit history you might realise I added some "fact"-tags and a source for the ambiguous ILO-part. I'd politely ask you to clarify whether you adress the term "nationalistic" to me, Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Wieluń biased edits
The German author is a former Nazi pupil, German general, Wehrmacht apologist.Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for letting me know and for your time there.--Jacurek (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Huta Pieniacka massacre
Hi to remove fact and refimprove tags from articles without improving them is vandalism. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The question of if I like a source does not come into it- all refs have to be reliable and verifiable in English as this is the English wiki


 * ref 2 is for a Google book review that does not even support what is being claimed.
 * ref 3 Has two major errors that the 14 sub unit of the 14th SS and their 4th Regiment were involved. The division did not have a 4th regiment of a 14th sub unit these errors put all the web site info in doubt.
 * ref 5 is a dead link to an external site.
 * ref 8 puts even more doubt onto the claims in the article as it says the  SS Halychyna Division was responsible not the 14th SS Division. not I have never heard of the SS Halychyna Division.
 * The rest of the refs are in a foreign language to the article and are not verifiable but of they of the standard of the ones above it puts there creditability into doubt also. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jim Sweeney, I see you are a seasoned editor, so why are you lying? I bet you know that sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Tymek (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom mention
Hi. I don't know whether you're aware of it, but there is currently an ArbCom case regarding [User:194x144x90x118. Because of my few interactions with that editor, and because I recommended that ArbCom look into the matter, I'm listed as a party involved in the case. In my evidence, which can be found with the rest at Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118/Evidence, I mentioned you, because 194x had mentioned you when he approached me on my talk page.

At first, I totally forgot to inform people whom I'd mentioned, so I'm doing that now. If you have any comment or response, I assume you're more than welcome to post there. Having never dealt with ArbCom before, I don't really know what the protocol is. Anyway, cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know. Loosmark (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Pidkamin massacre
If you check the edit history you will see I reverted it to the version where the ref improve etc tags were here [] you will see User:Paweł5586 had removed them. not for the first time I may add. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry just checked the article and one deleted in error which I have just replaced. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Polish Barnstar of National Merit
thank you Piotrus! Loosmark (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to do the same, but Piotrus turned out to be faster. Loosmark, your contributions are very appreciated by me. Good job and keep those articles going! Tymek (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also wanted to say good job.radek (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I should sign my mane here because I also think that your work on Polish related pages is exceptional. Thank you very much.--Jacurek (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your contributions are very much appreciated. Congratulations!!!--Woogie10w (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles
I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. You have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Opened ANI on you
See here: for persistent abusive behavior.Faustian (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hello, this is to notify you that another editor made an arbitration enforcement request against you at WP:AE.  Sandstein  20:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban
Loosmark, for the reasons provided at, and under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN, you are banned from the topic of Ukrainian-Polish relations during World War II, broadly construed, in all namespaces and discussions, for six months.  Sandstein  05:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Loosmark, I hope you take this lesson to heart: anything you say on Wikipedia should follow WP:AGF and WP:NPA - or it may and will be used against you. I am sure you can find other subjects to write about for the next few months. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advise, I'll try to draw positives from this experience which will allow me to grow as a wikipedian and raise the overall quality of my contribution to the project. Loosmark (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Japanese minelayer Okinoshima cleanup
Hi Loosmark, just curious -- based on what is your edit of Japanese minelayer Okinoshima is a "clean up"? I intend on reverting it, but decided to ask you first in case I'd be wrong in doing so and the reasons for me being wrong, if any. Thanks! --Mokhov (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Where is the date linking "depreciation" specified? Also, how about the word ordering of the dates, e.g. "May 2, 1936" vs. "2 May 1936"? --Mokhov (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! From there I've also gone to the as-of-yet-unconcluded debate: Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, so I guess I won't revert your change after all. Thanks for taking time to reply. --Mokhov (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI Reports about other users
I have notified Jäger as you failed to do so. You are REQUIRED to notify another user if you post about them on WP:ANI. Exxolon (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

To complain about the conduct of an admin
There are two options: Either go via a Request for Comment (RFC) at Requests_for_comment or via the Administrator's noticeboard at Administrators'_noticeboard. The admin's noticeboard will be reviewed by admin's chiefly, whereas the RFC will be reviewed by a wider audience.

Some advice - do not use emotional or dramatic language as it will almost almost always bias editors against you. Use a heading such as "Request for review of admin "uninvolved" status" and the simply state your case as clearly as possible.

Despite my advice, I personally do not expect you will get the result you are hoping for. However you are free to try of course. I will not get involved in this review unless asked to give evidence by an uninvolved editor. Manning (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll reopen the WP:AE thread, let another admin close it. AdjustShift (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Numbers
When I read about a warship in a military history, I go to my shelf and pull out Conways to check out the specs on the ship. The same goes for issues like the Expulsions, when Bonn claims 2.225 million dead, I want to see the details of the number and how they arrived at the bottom line. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your practise is most certainly a sound one, I'd just remark that Conways isn't always the most precise, sometimes i find some errors. Loosmark (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Message to A. shift
[]

Message to A. shift
[]

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments about me
Regarding your post on my talk page. Please note that I am a new user. Previously my edits were made from an unregistered IP address. I am unsure of what you are accusing me of and frankly I am not very interested therein either. However, if you would like to discuss any of my edits, I will be more than happy to do so.Varsovian (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Suprise, surprise. Loosmark (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Does that comment mean that you do or do not wish to discuss my edits? It would be better if we were to work together to resolve any issues which you may have with my edits. I will be happy to provide you with any sources you may need in order to understand why I have rewritten the London Victory parade article so as to reflect the true nature of the invitation of Polish representatives.Varsovian (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, but I understand very well what mission you were on. Loosmark (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are completely uninterested in any discussion about the article or the facts of the matter. Fair enough. Varsovian (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, i'm just uninterested in provocations orchestrated by the usual suspects. Loosmark (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "provocations"? Surely you do not wish to imply that I have been editing in bad faith, do you?Varsovian (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to imply anything. Loosmark (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is good to hear. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by my edits being a 'provocation'? Varsovian (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And who said your edits are a 'provocation'? Loosmark (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK, so when you said "i'm just uninterested in provocations orchestrated by the usual suspects" you meant that I was not one of the usual suspects. Glad we got that cleared up. Could you now possibly explain what you meant by "I understand very well what mission you were on"? I'd love to know more about my mission, could you tell me?Varsovian (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You came to my talk page and ask me a question and I've answered you politely but now you have turned this into an interogation. I don't like this anymore. Instead tell us about those 330 hits that you new user found, have you examined all of them? Loosmark (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates
See User:Loosmark/Polish Football Championship winners, User:Loosmark/Polish Football League Cup winners, and User:Loosmark/Polish Football Super Cup winners. Let me know if I can do anything else. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence removed to talk page
Loosmark - your recent evidence at the EEML case has been removed to here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence.

Your statement did not meet the criteria for evidence, which is the sole purpose for its removal.

As to the substance of your comment, I have added a reply at the above link. Essentially, I do not see any need to stress yourself over such allegations. Manning (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
for your moral support. At any rate, what would be interesting would be to hear in the talk page what you have to say about the matter. You are welcome to follow the links I gave in the talk page. Feketekave (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are two issues here. One is the fact that the numbers as shown on the page are inflated according to current scholarship - much of it done by German scholars, not that that matters. This is something that has by now become fairly well-established; as I said, it is discussed in full in the [] page. If you agree and others agree, I do not believe it would be extraordinarily difficult to establish this in the Volksdeutsche page; the important thing at this point is to have a full discussion in the talk page.

A separate issue to mention in the talk page is the fact that these numbers represent the total number of civilian dead in a particular historical period; it is difficult to find what the exact relation of them to the expulsions (as opposed to the war) would be, and how many would have happened irrespective of the expulsions. This is a very interesting matter, but it is possible that more sources may be needed before this issue is handled fully. Any citations you have to give here (or in the "Expulsions" page, where the tone seems to be gradually calming down) would be very helpful.

At any rate, please do not become discouraged and mention what you have to say in the appropriate talk pages. Feketekave (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I wasn't aware that book reviews counted as seperate sources. Thank you to clarifying for me that they are.Varsovian (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Oliva
Hi, may I ask you what was your intention when you made this diff? I reverted your change as the template deletion seemed out of place. Cheers, 79.181.116.27 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That huge template doesn't really belong to that article. Loosmark (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's huge when it's opened... There surely should be some way to make it "closed" all the time. Anyway I only guess it does belong somehow, the article is included in the template. 79.181.116.27 (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * maybe it can be closed i don't know. But anyway in my opinion that template should be split in more parts... Loosmark (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions warning
With your recent edits on Katyn massacre, both you and your opponent User:Dojarca have been engaging in tendentious aggressive edit-warring. I am therefore giving both of you a warning under the terms of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions rule that you may be placed under a revert limitation if you continue any form of disruptive POV-driven editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Your name had been brought up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthead. I have responded to this by making a request which involves you as you are one of the three users to which I refer when I say "the three users who have accused me of being somebody other than I say I am".Varsovian (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland
Please note that I was systematically addressing the issues at Featured article review/Soviet invasion of Poland/archive1. I was removing the POV that has been added since the article passed its FA and improving the prose, etc., as requested there. qp10qp (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have total faith that qp edits are good faithed and neutral. If you disagree with them, can you explain the problem(s) in details on the talk of the article? I am sure qp will reply there in detail. Please try to avoid reverting him wholesale. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

re: goodbye
Please reconsider. You are a valuable editor, the project needs you. I suggest that if you are stressed, you either take a wikibreak or do some uncontroversial edits. For me, writing WP:DYKs worked quite well in terms of stress relief. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Left you a message here. []--Jacurek (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, don't leave. If you have to take a break or work on some non-controversial articles, but you'll be needed.radek (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'd regret your decision to leave, I must nevertheless add one note of caution. You were under an Arbcom discretionary sanctions warning, and I'll put on the record here that at the moment you decided to leave I was very, very close to placing you under a revert restriction or similar sanction. You are of course welcome to come back, but if you do, please do not give in to any possible temptation of doing so covertly under a new account – under the present conditions this would amount to illicit sockpuppeting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And whatever for was I close to being placed on restriction? Loosmark (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See, some people are already rejoicing and taunting. Can't even wait till you've actually left to start with the incivility and personal attacks.radek (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, Piotrus is right that the best way to Wiki-destress without having to leave is to put your horse blinders on (don't even look at your watchlist) and sit down and write a completely new article. The trolls, the vandals and the POV pushers still seem to (mostly) respect a new article that is obviously under construction so you get some time with just you and Wikipedia and what it is *supposed* to be about.radek (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of taking a break with uncontroversial editing, how about you could try to create/expand articles related to Polish Navy/Polish Merchant Marine? There is potential for a lot of DYKing in there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I second some of the guys here. Do not leave, Wikipedia needs you. Rest for a few days, and reconsider your decision. Tymek (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

On Varsovian
I don't have time to review who dunnit but I want to recommend that Varsovian tries to stay away from Loosmark and Jacurek, and vice versa. A voluntary restriction on commenting about others and reverting them may be a good idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea however please note that Jacurek already got blocked for 1 month for "edit-warring, battleground behaviour and harassment, and placed on a 1R/d restriction on all Eastern Europe related pages for another six months". Also the same time Future Perfect came to threaten me on my talk page. Needless to say he didn't even give a warning to Varsovian who started the whole thing and who called Jacurek an idiot. Loosmark (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, we've had our differences. You are a valuable contributer - you have an admirable intensity and focus, and I've enjoyed (dealing with) your comebacks at me. Please reconsider.ANNRC (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks ANNRC. Loosmark (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed somewhere your grievance regarding original research in wikipedia? The reason why, IMO, it is unacceptable to have OR in Wikipedia is that it cannot possibly be peer reviewed. It's a shame, but inevitable. Politis (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually my grievance was because an admin stated that an article with OR was well written and well researched. I was told many times that OR is a definite no no on wikipedia. Loosmark (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek
Hello. I'm not an uninvolved admin because I left a sympathetic note on Jacurek's Talk page, but I agree with Jayron32. I think it's premature for other editors to ask for Jacurek's block to be reviewed unless he asks to be unblocked and is turned down. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously drop the WP:STICK. This is not cool and borders on WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are people so panicaly afraid of discussing things? I believe that a very bad block was made and since it seems to me that the blocking admin missunderstood the exchange between Jacurek and Varsovian made it worse than it was. I asked what others think of it. There is no need to go into panic mode and close the thread after 5 minutes, I have nothing against Future Perfect, he is a good admin, but I believe he made a wrong decision which should be corrected, otherwise we risk loosing a good editor. I would rather spend this time drinking a coca-cola or an eating ice-cream but I am concerned for the good of the project and try to do what I think is right. Loosmark (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark; unless Jacurek asks to be unblocked this is really a moot issue. Please concentrate on other issues, as I suggested above (DYKing articles on Polish ships and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a catch 22
You see, when you call ... some of those people from just west of Poland in 1939-1945 ... "Nazis" you're violating Godwin's Law. If you call them "Germans" or "German soldiers" then you're being an evil nationalistic Pole who supposedly thinks that all Germans were Nazis. What you're SUPPOSED to do is keep your mouth shut and just not bring the subject up in (im)polite company.radek (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, you know what? When I went to sleep exactly the same thing came to my mind, I remembered that somebody some time ago was telling I shouldn't use the world Germans because it reflects badly on Germans and introduces "collective guilt". Now I said "Nazis" and it's again wrong... The biggest irony is that I have quite many books about WW2 and they all use both words without problems. Loosmark (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnomusicology
Hi there! Concerning your comments at Talk:Battle of Westerplatte, re: "Inspiration", and certain types of music "sucking". That's not easy to tackle. It's hard to believe that 1939 is now 70 years ago and styles and tastes do change. In ethnomusicological discussions it's probably best not to insert ones musical or political prejudices into the mix. Take Chinese opera for example, some might think that it sucks. I don't because I understand the time frame and circumstances that it emanated from. Others might think Henryk Wars and Andrzej Włast's ditties or German military music sucks, although it was popular in wartime Britain and some of the tunes were considered "catchy". So it's important to keep in mind the time frame when one judges music. I hope you found my examples enjoyable. Btw, I'll bet in spite of you claiming that their music "sucked" the Germans were listening to it instead of Polskie Radio, and the third example I gave you might have been popular during the Westerplatte skirmish, or shortly thereafter. Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

 * Please do not falsify literal quotes, as you did by making this revert. The passage you reverted is a literally quoted piece of text which had been misquoted, as I clearly stated in my previous edit summary. I cannot believe you could be unaware of the fundamental rule of all serious written discourse that text in quotes must be kept intact. If you don't believe me, look up the text in the original source: I corrected it to what the original text said (with a legitimate explanative addition in square brackets, as it should be per WP:MOSQUOTE and the universal conventions of all academic discourse.)
 * In addition, I have now repeatedly seen you making contentious reverts without even the common courtesy of a minimally informative edit summary (e.g., , , . This, in itself, is disruptive, and I am therefore now officially warning you (again) to be more careful when making reverts, as you were already close to being sanctioned for disruptive revert-warring a few weeks ago.
 * If you think that by reverting me in this fashion you can magically turn me from an "uninvolved" into an "involved" administrator with respect to sanctioning you, you are mistaken: I am not in a content dispute with you; at the moment I am simply upholding indisputable demands of academic integrity against a case of obvious content corruption. I will nevertheless not take administrative action against you this time; however, I am asking you to either explain your revert (and make it a good explanation), or self-revert. In the absence of a good explanation I will otherwise treat your edit as vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re, I will actually accept you were perhaps not aware why your edit was disruptive; however, this doesn't change two things: first, if you honestly "don't understand what's so bad about" changing a literal quote, this displays a degree of naivety about academic discourse which, in a person who wishes to edit encyclopedia articles about history, I find rather troubling; but secondly and most importantly, even if you didn't know that one shouldn't change the wording of a quote, you must have seen that I told you exactly that in my immediately previous edit summary. You reverted as if you hadn't even taken notice of what the person you were reverted had been telling you. That, quite independently of your previous knowledge of the rules of quoting, and independently of the objective merits of either your edit or mine, is a very serious sign of a fundamentally uncooperative attitude to editing. This is a serious matter and I am therefore seriously asking you to re-think your mode of operation in this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert restriction
Right after my warning above regarding unexplained reverts, you did this – yet another (partial) revert in the same series of contentious naming edit wars, again lacking an edit summary. Note that I'm not talking here about the objective justification of either edit (I have absolutely no opinion about that), but about your communication style.

You are therefore now placed under a revert limitation: As usual, reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt from these restrictions, but that's only for real vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1R/24h on any page, with the following additional restrictions:
 * 2) You must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary.
 * 3) You may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion.


 * Take it easy, Loosmark. The above restrictions are really but an extension of good editing practices. I again implore you to take a break from controversial subjects. There are a lot of uncontroversial subjects needing help, I mentioned Polish Navy related articles some time ago. Please, don't do any harsh actions. You are a valued member of this project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments
You know, you could really learn a little tact. I bother trying to be fair by not taking part in that case, even though I could indeed judge fairly here (contrary to what you think, I don't always agree with FutPerf). Furthermore, I've pointed out ways you could move on and get your restrictions lifted early, as well as pointing out where to go to file your appeal when you were in the wrong place last night. And what do you do? Make comments to try to discredit me like "hear hear", when it was completely unnecessary because I was staying out of the situation anyway. Notice that I haven't even made any comment on the validity of FutPerf's restriction on you. I don't need to; the other admins with less connection to FutPerf have reaffirmed your editing restrictions. That should give you pause and make you think maybe you actually were in the wrong here and just move on. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your signature
Hello Loosmark, I just wanted to leave you a note that you might want to change your signature slightly. Not what it says (calling yourself "Dr. Loosmark" isn't a problem) and not the way it looks (I personally like the blue background) but per the signature guideline your signature "must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page". You probably weren't aware of that, I'm sure, but I suggest editing it to link to at least one of those pages. I've actually seen ANI complaints about signatures that don't have links and editors can even be blocked for refusing to change them. If you're not sure how to do that, let me know and I'd be very happy to help you out. Thanks! --  At am a  頭 20:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your new sig (colorwise and all of that). You may want to replace the "retired" text on your userpage with the nifty Template:Retired. Thanks for your kind words, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your comments at the clerk's desk
I have never met you before, but I appreciate those comments. Ikip (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
I notice soome of the unfortunate AFD notices on your talk page, and I also sadly note that you maybe retiring. You maybe interested in a wonderful group I am involved in, which may encourage you to stay and continue to contribute. Hope to see you again soon!

Kawasaki KR750

 * Well, I wouldn't call it bizarre, but certainly quite a bit overzealous. Very short pages tend to be harder to estimate by the bot in practice, and have a higher rate of false positives (because there is less material to compare).  Your stub was just long enough for CSBot to pick up, and it tagged.This is why it doesn't delete:  the human being reviewing the situation would have obviously figured out that there could be no infringement and just removed it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Freddie Spencer
I can split the 1984 season by bike used, if you can provide information on which bikes were used for which races. Thanks!Orsoni (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Great find on the web page!Orsoni (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Biaroza Kartuska
FYI here. Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Opole
Changes undone. EoGuy (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)