User talk:NoPuzzleStranger

''This page is protected from editing to avoid vandalism. It is preserved as a record of the debate that led to the blocking of this user as the return of hard-banned user Wik/Gzornenplatz.''

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 20:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

There is Talk page for every article
Could you please use article Talk page instead of reverting it over and over. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 20:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you please mind your own business. If an edit summary suffices to explain an edit, there's no need to use the talk page, which I will use when I want to make a lengthy argument. You, however, reverted the page WITHOUT explaining yourself. And then you put a template there which says one party has voluntarily ceased editing. Could you tell me which party that is? Thanks. NoPuzzleStranger 21:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But if you want to make an edit to a page that someone (or even more, several people) disagree with, you should discuss it on the Talk page. That's the way things are supposed to work on Wikipedia. Please refer to Resolving disputes. Solver 21:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please, stop the revert war over Czechia and Czech lands. If you cannot reach consensus, discuss it on Talk:Czech Republic, create RFC to get some outside input... if normal means fail create a poll or ask for mediation... but please stop reverting. --Wikimol 21:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, please note that you may end up violating the three revert rule with your actions. I suggest you start using the talk pages to discuss your proposed edits and reach a consensus. Solver 23:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please take where when trying to resolve edit conflicts due to two person trying to edit the same page at the same time. You removed a note of mine: -- User:Docu

Please have a look at the Talk:Czech page and, more importantly, stop the revert war! Matt 10:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Czech lands vs. Czechia
Is this some sort of mad scientists contest? I don't think that your audience is going to be interested in an pseudo-academic dog fight. Why don't you say e.g. "born roughly on the territory of present-day Czech Republic"?

I had a run-in with Juro as well and can empathize with you feelings. He can be extremely insulting and difficult to work with. However, I'd urge you however not to degrade into this kind of counterproductive behavior. Let's ignore his biting comments and settle this in a civilized way.

Jbetak 23:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Although the voting period just ended with a 14-8-2 vote, I will admit once and for all that I used it more as an evaluation of myself. Being promoted would have been a plus. I was more interested in who voted, when they voted, who would change their votes and when, and the comments I would receive. Hopefully I will correct the main weakness that was raised by those who voted oppose -- that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. Also, I will try to interact more with those Wikipedians who did not vote at all.

As for next month, I don't know if I will nominate myself again. I might not think about it until somebody else puts me up there on RFA at a later date. Eventually, I see myself as an admin, especially as the number of articles and users continues to grow. Thanks again and good luck at improving this vast archive of free knowledge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Alt.usenet.kooks
I don't like the title any more than you do, but please please please do not willingly create forks like that. The alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup had the history and the more recent edits, and while we sort out if it should be moved back, please edit there and nowhere else. You're only making it harder to clean up the mess when we do decide to move it back. JRM · Talk 17:50, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
 * Be bold, but not reckless. Please contain your enthusiasm and dedication over restoring this page to its rightful title and give people a chance to hear all sides. This will remain fixable if and only if people do not insist on having one thing or the other done while it is still possibly disputed. Stay cool, please. JRM · Talk 18:04, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

As you can see, all is right with the world again. Thanks for not pressing the issue further at the time. JRM · Talk 23:34, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Trey Stone and Davenbelle
Hi! Trey Stone has Requested Arbitration with me:


 * Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle
 * Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Evidence

You are mentioned in evidence that I have presented and I'm bringing this to your attention. Comments and evidence of your own are welcome.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 01:13, May 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * You might also take a look at: Requests_for_comment/Trey_Stone. -- Viajero


 * hallo NoPuzzleStranger

can you please stop cooking up again and again old stories. Uwe is very sick and we do not like in our project to bring his name in connection to fisting etc. As you probably know every tenured professor in 4 year schools can be included - thank you very much for your consideration and keep up with your fine work for wikipedia (which we helped starting many years ago) Oceanographer 19:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think your Wikipedia editing is relevant in your autobiography, then the desysopping can be mentioned as well. POV like "possibly Europe&#8217;s most outstanding young marine scientist" or "Kils lost ... due to a corrupt Kiel judge" will have to be modified too. NoPuzzleStranger 19:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * the first was a statement of a third party, a faculty, and cited Oceanographer 20:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a one-sided quote making up more than half the article. NoPuzzleStranger 20:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I deleted "corrupt" due to your advice, its a quote with the names given Oceanographer 20:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Identity
Hello, as you may be aware, it has been suggested that you are the same person as User:Wik and User:Gzornenplatz. If you continue your present approach to editing, I am certain that the claim will be made again at some point and the issue will need to be settled somehow. Accordingly, I think it is necessary to have you answer the question: Are you the same person as Wik and/or Gzornenplatz? Please reply promptly. --Michael Snow 16:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, although I sympathize with them. But what exactly do you mean with my "present approach to editing"? NoPuzzleStranger 17:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as I imagine you already know, Wik and Gzornenplatz are currently banned from editing, although they/he/she have the option of appealing this ban. Any accounts used by that person may be blocked under the blocking policy.
 * What I mean by that phrase is that the issues you take an interest in, and the way you have been dealing with disagreements over editing, are so strikingly similar to Wik and Gzornenplatz that you are liable to be blocked for impersonating them, even if you are a different person. --Michael Snow 17:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't impersonation of person X require a positive claim to be person X? I don't suppose that taking interest in certain issues, or dealing with disagreements over editing the way I'm doing, is in itself blockworthy (unlike others, I'm not violating the 3RR). Incidentally, how is one supposed to appeal a ban? Just telling the Arbcom "I appeal this ban"? Would it come to a different decision then? Normally in a justice system an appeal goes to a different, higher court. NoPuzzleStranger 17:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In the normal world, impersonation can be accomplished without actually making a positive claim, even if this is not the typical case. However, perhaps "impersonating" was not the best choice of words, "imitating" would be closer to the point.
 * As indicated, Wik/Gzornenplatz may be blocked if they/he/she edit Wikipedia from any account (or IP address, for that matter). Naturally, the accounts of banned users do not always announce, "Hi, I'm banned user X." They may be identified by technical means, or because the new account exhibits characteristic hallmarks of the banned account. In either case, the evidence is necessarily circumstantial. It is of course theoretically possible that a different person would use the same computer (the technical identification), or that a different person might adopt the same editing mannerisms and interests. With respect to the latter scenario, it's typically advised not to do this; whether or not the new account is the same person, imitating a banned user is generally disruptive, and disruption is another potential justification for blocking. Thus a theory can support blocking the account either way - as a reincarnation if it's the same person, and as a disruptive user if it's a different person. Quite simply, people are better off not imitating banned users.
 * With respect to appealing a ban, the Arbitration Committee ruling regarding Gzornenplatz stated, "Gzornenplatz is reminded that he may appeal the ban to Jimbo Wales or to the Arbitration Committee, via e-mail, IRC, or other means of contact outside of Wikipedia." Wales and/or the rest of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees would serve as the higher court in this system, effectively. However, "appeals" in the general sense do not always go to higher courts; in the American judicial system, at least, it is sometimes possible to request reconsideration of a decision from the same court, either before or instead of appealing to the higher court. Different decisions can certainly result, particularly if new arguments or evidence are offered, or if circumstances have changed.
 * As for how to go about it, one could email any of the arbitrators, I suppose, although choosing one of the more active ones would probably yield the swiftest response. I'm not sure how the appeal process would actually function, but the Arbitration Committee does have a private mailing list for deliberations. I imagine it could be arranged to allow other people to post, although I don't know its address.
 * If this is not just a theoretical discussion, and an appeal is actually contemplated, I'm willing to act as an intermediary if that is acceptable. If more private communication is desired so this can be discussed confidentially, I can be reached by the wiki email function, although I am not currently at home with access to my email, so it would be a few hours before I can respond. --Michael Snow 19:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not "imitating" anyone either. I'm just (among other things) tending to some articles that Gzornenplatz tended to, and he was after all not banned for any such editing, but for a supposed vandalism spree by Wik 1-2 years ago. If that leads to the conclusion that I must be the same person, and I'm banned for that, then I can't help it. As to that appeal, I just wonder what new arguments or evidence or changed circumstances the Arbcom imagines there could be; or how, in the absence of such, a reconsideration would lead to a different result (Jimbo was already involved in the last ruling, so he's not likely to change his mind suddenly either). NoPuzzleStranger 19:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What new arguments? Any arguments, just about; so far as I know, Gzornenplatz never really attempted to argue his position in the case, apparently preferring the same kind of fatalistic resignation. --Michael Snow 20:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, what else could he do? Tim Starling said he was Wik, and the Arbcom believed Tim, and at the same time Jimbo said Wik was banned, and that was that. So if the Arbcom were to "decide" now that I'm Wik too, well... NoPuzzleStranger 21:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * On the identity question, there really wasn't much other evidence for anyone to believe, since Gzornenplatz never tried to show he wasn't Wik. Even without technical evidence, the similarities were pretty convincing. It's sort of expected that if one is a different person, it would be possible to come up with something to support this claim. This has been managed for two separate users who were once considered reincarnations of Alex Plank.
 * As for the ban, I understand that Wik/Gzornenplatz might not have wanted to deal with this issue through Jimbo, and would not have considered other options since the ban originated with him. I would hope that the arbitration ruling makes clear now that the Arbitration Committee does have the authority to modify and/or rescind the ban. Even if the reasons for the ban ultimately go back to the vandalism spree, I am convinced that the arbitrators would respond positively to an appeal if some sort of apology/mitigating explanation could be provided. Nor do I think that Jimbo would intervene or exert pressure to keep the ban in place. Jimbo has said pretty clearly that he has no desire to overrule the Arbitration Committee, and I'm confident that this case is not where he would choose to start doing so. --Michael Snow 21:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is little you can do to disprove an identity if you want to remain anonymous. And if the Arbcom were willing to rescind Wik's ban, it could have done so on its own. But they're not going to do it without some kowtow from Wik, which is not likely. The explanation for the vandalism was already given at the time - namely, that his own user pages were vandalized first, and Jimbo refused to do anything to stop it. NoPuzzleStranger 22:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Hello there. Since you decided to join the revert war on Grand Duchy of Lithuania, then may I ask you what was the "separate government of Grand Duchy of Lithuania" within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or did you join the revert war just for fun? Halibutt 19:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, what was it? Poland and Lithuania had separate governments headed by separate grand marshals (see marszalek). NoPuzzleStranger 19:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the duties of Marsza&#322;ek Wielki Koronny and Marsza&#322;ek Wielki Litewski were: court etiquette, starting and ending the senate sessions, aiding the king during juridiciary process and supervising the police duties. His prerogatives had little to do with anything you might call a government. Any other ideas? Halibutt 23:42, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's as far as the powers of a "head of government" in a monarchy went at that time. Still, the grand marshals were the "chief ministers", and there was a separate Lithuanian one, which is the whole point here. NoPuzzleStranger 00:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the marshals had nothing to do with the government. In PLC there was no government as such and all decisions were made by the Sejm, that is the diet, senat and the king. And these were common for all parts of the state. Halibutt 00:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Then why does the marszalek article written by Emax say he served as the "prime minister"? Since when does a "prime minister" have nothing to do with the government? NoPuzzleStranger 01:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's an oversimplification because of bad translation. Marsza&#322;ek was sometimes referred to as pierwszy minister, meaning first of the advisors or first of the servants, as he was above all the other court officials (cup-bearer, sword-bearer, flag-bearer, writer, geometrician, mathematician, secretary and so on). Literal translation of that term results in prime minister, though the Polish name for the latter post is Premier. It's simply a bad translation, nothing more. Halibutt 02:57, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I reworded the article and cleansed it a tad. Hope that would explain the matter more clearly. Halibutt 03:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, of course there was no government in the modern sense, but those court officials were the closest equivalent to ministers. So if you have problems with saying "Lithuania had a separate government" you might say "Lithuania had a separate set of court officials". NoPuzzleStranger 11:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, they were as close to modern government ministers, as to protestant ministers. The chain of power ommitted them completely. If they were powerful, it was not because of the function, but because the power of their families. All prerogatives currently reserved for the government were reserved for the Sejm (one for all lands of the Commonwealth) and the King (again, only one). It wasn't until the Permanent Council (Rada Nieustaj&#261;ca) of 1775 when the first semi-modern government of the Commonwealth was formed. And even then it was only one for all lands.


 * If one seeks equivalent of modern ministers in pre-18th century PLC, then it have to be the Senators or simply members of the Sejm. Marshals had little to do with politics or governing. Halibutt 13:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Sejm was the parliament, not the executive. Things like "supervising police duties" seem to me like executive functions. From : "The king appointed five ministers for Poland and five for Lithuania: chancellor (foreign and home affairs), vice-chancellor, grand marshal (justice), court marshal (household affairs), treasurer, also grand and field commanders of the army as well as lesser members of the administration." NoPuzzleStranger 10:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Archiving Cantus 3RR report
It was archived because things normally get archived once there has been no further activity in the section for 24 hours or so. I let this one sit somewhat longer than that, to see if anyone wanted to do anything, and nobody did, so since it had been several days already, I moved it out. Noel (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

PPS: Also, please note that at the time it was archived, that request was the second-oldest request on the page. The oldest things generally go, in archiving runs, right? Noel (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

use talk pages not project pages / do not lie
...if you have to state your personal views. Provide facts for your claims. Do not lie / misrepresent. Your way of doing things on the project page is annoying. Yes, I would complain about that, about your way not to provide facts and to misrepresent. I did not complain about anything while writing on the project page. It is a pure lie of you. You cannot say I complained, if I did not. If you do so it is lieing to discredit me. Stop this. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You have been misusing the project page to make your personal view look like policy (you have cited that page in edit summaries when reverting others as if it were a policy that justified your revert) or at least de facto "current use" (when in fact that is only because you made it so through thousands of moves, without establishing consensus first; before your moves the "X Entity" format was only used in a small minority of cases). So if you want to propose the principle "don't use project pages to state your personal views" that whole page would have to be deleted, as it is nothing but your personal view.


 * I have not misrepresented anything. If you deny the fact that you unilaterally moved tons of pages to create a fait accompli without discussion, it's you who's lying. Anyone can check your contribution history and anyone check random "X Entity" articles and the redirects that point there, and see that at least 90% of them are a result of your moves. You're complaining just now, and at the same time you deny that you complained? The fact that you felt the need to point to the self-evident fact that I did not post "statistics" shows that you're obviously denying my claim, and complaining that without statistics it is invalid. Or else what is your intention of making this point? NoPuzzleStranger 22:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * at time when you wrote that I complained this was wrong because I did not. I only wrote (or tried to write) in NPOV. There were no statistic. You talked about hundreds maybe thousand pages unilateraly moved by me. Now after all you start the next case by claiming: Anyone can check your contribution history and anyone check random "X Entity" articles and the redirects that point there, and see that at least 90% of them are a result of your moves. PROVIDE STATISTICS FOR THIS CLAIM! and you still have to provide statistics for your other claimes. I already provided a way to check the origin of current use by adding move infos. I WORK on providing statistics. Yes I doubted in your claim, that I unilateraly moved hundred maybe thousand pages. But I did not complain. I only wrote stats are missing. And NO: I did NOT deny your claim. In opposite to you I use statistics, if I have none I cannot deny. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * please stop lying about me. I do not insist on the content in the page WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming . I am main contributor but several other people contributed and changed info as well Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The only one besides you who made a nontrivial change to that page was me, and when I did so, you inserted a sentence that I "insist on posting the following". So obviously I can likewise qualify your opinion. NoPuzzleStranger 13:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * and my post was true and yours a lie. because I only said you insist on one paragraph, you said I insist on the whole page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we'll see. I've removed my post along with blanking the entire page. If you revert it, you obviously insist on it, and I will then restore the comment. NoPuzzleStranger 13:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mediator comments
I've seen your request for mediation, so I decided to drop by and look at things. It seems you've created this subpage of the project without ever directly talking to Tobias about it on his talk page (I didn't see your name in the history). I'm assuming Tobias thinks you're trying to rally people against him by posting it in the wikipedia namespace.

Could you guys try to talk things out on each other's talk page? Ask him why he moved the pages he moved and tell him why you disagree. Remember, words like "unilaterally" can anger people. Try to keep down any frustration you may feel, and talk to him like you want to be spoken to. I'll leave Tobias a message too. - Mgm|(talk) 14:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't looked at it enough. I didn't create that page, I just added a paragraph there. And "unilaterally" is perfectly factual. If I do something unilaterally, I don't mind being spoken to that way either. NoPuzzleStranger 15:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And "unilaterally" is perfectly factual. Agree Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

XII Region of Magallanes and Chilean Antarctica
thx for reverting improper move (break of history) at XII Region of Magallanes and Chilean Antarctica Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brandon Toropov's nomination
Hi NPS, just to clarify: did you intend to vote in support of Brandon? I'm wondering only because your comment was that the nomination had been made in bad faith, yet you left the comment in the support section, so I thought I should check with you. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I saw your next comment and now it's clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

České Budějovice
I'm not sure if I would be this bold. Many cities on the "fringes" of former Czechoslovakia have been greatly influenced (if not built) by other cultures and their former names survive or are recognized until today.

What happened to formerly Jewish, German and Magyar towns like Bratislava borders on barbarism and is a real shame. Jbetak 28 June 2005 16:24 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter who built the cities. A city that's now Czech will have a Czech name; I don't know what you mean by saying their former names "survive or are recognized" - well, they may be remembered, but they're still former names. I don't think there's a significant number of German speakers there so that Budweis could be considered an alternative local name. NoPuzzleStranger 29 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)


 * If it's not an "alternative local name", it most certainly is an "alternative name". World name recognition is not built overnight and typically reflects rich local history and contributions to world cultural heritage. I don't think you can call "Budweis" a "former" name. It's a foreign name alternative still in common use today. Same applies to Pilsen and Karlsbad. If these cities were less notable, I'm sure their name alternatives would fade away quickly. Jbetak 29 June 2005 22:26 (UTC)


 * Please stop reverting the changes to this article if you chose not to discuss the topic with me. I *will* call for mediation otherwise. Jbetak 30 June 2005 15:04 (UTC)


 * I don't see much prospect of further discussion getting us to agreement. We seem to have different concepts of what's a "former name". I don't think it's about "world name recognition" - the world recognizes the name Leningrad too (i.e. it knows which city is meant by that name), but it's still a former name. Same goes for Budweis. It is obviously not the local name and it is obviously not an English name. It is the old German name. NoPuzzleStranger 30 June 2005 15:18 (UTC)


 * Since you are not accessible to a dialog I'll be calling for mediation. Until then I'll be restoring the old version of the article (before your and my changes). Jbetak 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)


 * Dude - with all due respect. I thought this project is about facts and not about vanity. You have initiated changes which I believe are POV and are close to engaging to a revert war - just to satisfy your ego? The City of Pilsen is using that name on its municipal website. It's really too gracious to leave that article alone.


 * Besides, it's not *my* version, it's what the Wikipedia community came up with. I have reverted the Budweis article to the version prior to your changes - and again I didn't write it. I have found a reference to a fairly new tournament called the "Budweis Cup" organized by the local South Bohemian soccer club. Is that enough to prove that "Budweis" is still used and recognized by the locals? Your example of Leningrad does not apply fully, since the naming changed for political reasons and for a relatively short period of time. Prague, Budweis, Pilsen and a few others have been in use for centuries and for a reason. If you wanted to see a Czech alternative to "Leningrad", check out Zlin. I would understand if you were Czech, but your are not. So WTF? Jbetak 1 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)


 * Dude, that's pretty fucked up right here. You have expressed POV above ("barbarism", "real shame"), not me. I'm just being factual here. I don't see where you see "vanity" or "ego" coming into it. A revert war always takes two, so look in the mirror before complaining about that. As I told you before, we can let the municipal websites decide - it is indeed a good compromise - but then, while Plzen remains on your version, Ceske Budejovice remains on mine. Or do you prefer revert warring on both articles?


 * It's *your* version if you're reverting to it. There wasn't a vote, so it's not "the Wikipedia community" that came up with it. One editor came up with it, and now I, as an equal member of the Wikipedia community, am changing it. The idea that something is supported by consensus if it stood unchanged long enough is a bizarre argument that you could use against almost any edit. Of course Budweis and Pilsen were used for centuries - because German was the official language. The cities never had separate English names, so the local names were used in English. But now that the local names are Czech, those Czech names are naturally used, although the German ones are still familiar, and I think my wording reflects that. I just dispute that "Pilsen" or "Budweis" (which are old German names and can't be "alternate English" names since they aren't English names at all) are equivalent to "Prague" (which is a true English name). I could understand if you were a German nationalist, but you seem to be Czech. So WTF? NoPuzzleStranger 1 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)


 * You know last time I looked Prague was the French version of Prag, the German name for Praha. So there. The situation in Prague and all other notable Czech towns is pretty much the same -- they were all under strong German influence going as far back as Middle Ages. Their German or Latin names were and are still used for practical or historical reasons. And since they are used in English, they are English name alternatives. Wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary. Most people don't care anyway - see Prague.


 * The other thing that really bothers me about your edit is this: the phrase you changed has been in place for three years. Dozens of editors and even more readers didn't find anything objectionable in it. There are two editors that reverted your changes. This to me is a pretty strong statement as it is. Prague and Pilsen are both in the same boat, which you seem to acknowledge. What puzzles me even more is the fact that you initiated a similar change in the Danzig article and didn't stick. So why to hell are you raising so much stink about it here?


 * You guessed my ethnicity and let me assure you - I couldn't be less interested in pushing some chauvinistic POV. I've lived in enough places to see how pointless and even unjust that is. Credit should be given where credit is due and Budweis most definitely still has an English name alternative which reflects its rich past and is still embraced -- when appropriate by the locals.


 * FYI: even the Bratislava article has changed its foreign name references. I believe this is the right thing to do here dude. Jbetak 8 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)


 * Prague is clearly the English name of Praha. That it's also the French name is irrelevant. Since it is used in English and is not simply the (former or present) local-language name, it is a true "English name" (as opposed to a "name used in English"). Accordingly, Prague and Pilsen are not in the same boat. As to Danzig, that is a whole can of worms in itself, and the time I want to spend on revert wars or discussions that go forever in circles is limited after all. By saying the name Budweis "reflects its rich past" and is used "when appropriate" you only make it clear that it is a historic (i.e. former) name, which may occasionally be used to name specific things associated with the city ("Budweis Cup" may sound better than "Ceske Budejovice Cup") but it is not the present official name. NoPuzzleStranger July 8, 2005 02:49 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see. Budweis is clearly the English name of České Budějovice. That it's also the German name is irrelevant. Just using your own peculiar logic you applied to Prague. How can something be a true "English name" if it's clearly French boggles my mind, but I'm sure you have an explanation for that also.


 * Why would Pilsen not be in the same boat? Clearly Pilsen and Budweis were both local names. They are in the same boat. Same applies to Karlsbad and a number of others. Besides nobody here disputes that České Budějovice is the official name today. Even the article says so. Budweis however, is a currently and not formerly used name alternative. Saying that it's also known as Budweis indicates the status of a name alternative. All the other-language articles says so (feel free to check German, Polish, Dutch etc.). All notable towns of former Czechoslovakia have the same issue and deal with it the way it was before your uninvited edit. Jbetak 8 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)


 * Your logic leaves a bit to be desired. German used to be the local language, not French. Why should English people use the French name for a Czech city? Well, they didn't - it's an English name, even if (which I don't know, and I somehow doubt that you researched the etymology of the word either) the French used the name Prague before and the English adopted it from them, like they may adopt other words from French which then become English words (loanwords). But just using the local-language name does not make something an English name. Nobody here disputes that "Budweis" is occasionally used, which is exactly what my version of the article says ("also known by its old German name of Budweis"). Declaring it a regular "alternate name", however, would suggest complete interchangability and equality of status, which would be wrong. Finally, I never heard that edits have to be "invited" (by whom, anyway?). NoPuzzleStranger July 8, 2005 15:42 (UTC)


 * Oh please! Why is Rome Rome and not Roma? Vienna Vienna and not Wien? All of these names have been adopted from either French or Latin. Prague is French transliteration of Prag and is pronounced the same way. I think we are in agreement that there are French loan words - as there are German and Latin loan words. These three languages had probably the largest influence on English. Words like "kindergarden", "blitzkrieg", "Prague", "Carlsbad", "Pilsen" or "Budweis" are recognized by English speakers worldwide. I believe we are talking about the same thing: foreign geographic name use is tied to historical and practical considerations. That's why the Czechs don't insist on changing the foreign name use from Prague to Praha, Pilsen to Plzen and Budweis to Budejovice. In fact they themselves haven been embracing these names until today. This is not the same situation like with Bombay, where the local population felt that it was something foisted on them by the colonials and insist on that name not being used in English. Jbetak 8 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

Oahu
Hmm, have you discussed the removal of the `okina from the article with anyone? There have been lengthy and long fought discussion/battles over its use and I wonder why you would chose to make such a controversial edit.

Do you even read your talk page? Just wondering... Jbetak 29 June 2005 20:07 (UTC)


 * The &#699;okina is not used in English. O&#699;ahu is just the Hawaiian name. That has indeed already been discussed. NoPuzzleStranger 29 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)

Sealand
NoPuzzleStranger, please leave a note at Talk:Sealand explaining your reversions. As I have made clear, this is a matter primarily of style rather than making a political statement; it is clear that Sealand's claim is disputed, so one cannot simply say straight-out that it is not a "real" state. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 5 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)


 * Of course one can say that. Who disputes it other than "Sealand" itself? NoPuzzleStranger July 5, 2005 03:13 (UTC)

If the independence of Sealand were an open-and-shut case, then there would be no needd for such an in-depth discussion as is present at Sealand; following NPOV one cannot say here that Sealand is not a real country. The punctuation marks are simply not part of the name; can you give other examples on the Wikipedia where micronations or disputed territories have formatting of the official name similar to that at Sealand? And please leave your comments on the topic at Talk:Sealand; this keeps the conversation open and and is more efficient than discussing it on user pages. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 5 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict at micronation. I will stop now, would you please clean up for me? Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 22:29 (UTC)

etaoin shrdlu
Where'd you find that cool image of the etaoin shrdlu example (he said enviously) - DavidWBrooks 5 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)


 * I just searched for "etaoin shrdlu" in a New York Times archive. I cut that paragraph out from a larger article, so that it's certainly fair use. NoPuzzleStranger July 5, 2005 17:05 (UTC)

The Hyphen War
Thanks for your help on Reichsführer-SS. I posted three documents with the hyphen clearly shown. So, in a way, this was good in that the issue will hopefully not come up again. Thanks again. -Husnock 21:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche
A LaRouche cult edit is an edit made by a member of the Lyndon LaRouche cult, such as Cognition. I now revert all such edits to articles on my watchlist, regardless of content. In this I have no particular problems with the content of the edit, so if you want to make the edit I will not revert it. Adam 15:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Pardon the gruff manner of editor Carr. The LaRouche-related editor(s) has worn out the patience of many fine contributors. Though Carr's explanation that edits are worthy of reversion simply because they are made by a LaRouche-related editor may seem arbitrary or excessively broad, it is not. At the time of the second ArbCom case against him, I personally reviewed User:Herschelkrustofsky's contributions carefully, cross checking them against LaRouche sites and others. Virtually every single one of the hundreds of edits that he made served to promote one or another of LaRouche's theories. Some were so obscure and innocuous-seeming that if I hadn't been studying the material the connection would not have been apparent. Many edits were clearly composed of cut-and-paste plagiarism or copyright violations. That is why we are not approaching LaRouche-related editors with good faith. LaRouche has earned the bad faith of Wikipedia. -Willmcw 02:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone, Ronald Reagan and 3RR
As one of the many people tired of Trey Stone's antics, I have reported him to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for his violation of the Three revert rule, this having been his fifth or sixth one since going into arbitration. Currently he is one arbitrator vote shy of being banned from editing any political articles while arbitration continues, and when the case is reoslved he will in all likelihood be banned from editing political articles for one year. Ruy Lopez 06:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You may want to keep watching the Reagan page - there is now another POV editor, Guy Montag, removing facts he doesn't like. NoPuzzleStranger 07:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

NoVandalismPlease
Please do not engage in vandalism, e.g., during your cooking oil edit wars (or ever for that matter). Thanks. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:49, 2005 July 16 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I didn't introduce that "faggot". I was just reverting to an earlier version which contained it. NoPuzzleStranger 07:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize, you didn't mention it was a revert in your summary so I didn't check the history, or I would have caught the intervening edit from an anon who appears to have vandalized the page multiple times. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:48, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

The Party of the Left.
What exactly are you doing with regard to The Party of the Left./Party of Democratic Socialism (Germany)? Why do you feel it is unnecessary to discuss the move on Talk? Why do you keep moving it back to a title which incorrectly contains a period and the word "the"? - Nat Krause 04:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The period and article are part of the new name. . I don't see what's there to discuss before moving - the party renamed itself and the article should be moved to the new name. Why did you keep moving it back to the old title which is clearly no longer the party's name? NoPuzzleStranger 07:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * You linked to a page in German. It doesn't say "The Party of the Left." anywhere. I am reverting your moves because I think it is important for you to discuss this matter on the relevant Talk: page before moving. - Nat Krause 07:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It says "Die Linkspartei." (hint: "Die" = "The" and "." = "."). NoPuzzleStranger 08:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * It strains credulity that you believe that all German names should be translated word-for-word and punctuation-for-punctuation into English. Moreover, even for untranslated words, German-language style is not necessary for an English Wikipedia. - Nat Krause 08:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it shouldn't be correctly translated. This is not "German-language style" - the name is as unusual in German as it is in English. NoPuzzleStranger 08:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship opposition
Hi. While I appreciate your candor and concern, I thought I'd answer your concern here instead of on the nomination page.

It's my understanding that "extremely short articles with little or no content" are candidates for deletion. That's why I did what I did, right or wrong. I wasn't being a maverick. However, I do feel that a "strong oppose" is rather harsh in light of the minor substub I tagged and in light of my overall contributions. I'm not asking you to recant your vote. If you feel that strongly, I accept your position and I respect you for making a choice. I'm asking that you look at my overall contributions and the comment I left on the nomination page. I plan on treading very lightly if this nomination goes through and I'd appreciate your support if I happen to make an error, that's all. Thanks. Best, Lucky 6.9 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You know very well that the general consensus is that your speedy-tagging is wrong, not right. Articles with no content are candidates for deletion, but articles with little content are called stubs and are not candidates for deletion. And "the minor substub" I cited was just an example, which you well know stands for hundreds of its kind. And since you have pledged to tread lightly before and still continued the same way, such an assurance is not good enough. I'd actually have to see you stop doing it for a long enough time. NoPuzzleStranger 15:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency
Please see Talk:Iraqi insurgency, If you want to make a non-NPOV edit. JDR 16:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You mistakenly reverted at least one change which was valid. Please do check exactly what you are reverting exactly. --Ebralph 18:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Help
Could some admin undo the vigilante block by PMA? Aside from the fact that his given reasons are ludicrous (I was not doing POV edits, I was removing obvious POV, and other users have joined me in that now - is PMA going to block them all?), even if the charges were true it wouldn't be in his authority to block on those grounds without Arbcom decision. NoPuzzleStranger 14:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've looked at Talk:Iraqi insurgency and I have to agree that you and Ruy were pushing a POV. Adam's version is actually the most neutral since it is actually based on legal realities rather than any philosophic interpretation of whether the forces are legitimately invited or whether a government is legitimately elected or not despite a transparently democratic process. --khaosworks 15:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter right now who is pushing POV. Individual admins are not entitled to block people on those grounds. So could you please unblock me and let PMA start the proper dispute resolution procedures if he wants to? By the way, he also improperly blocked User:Thecunninglinguists. The greatest POV offender, it seems to me, is PMA himself, by trying to block everyone who doesn't share his POV in order to force an edit war to go in his favour. NoPuzzleStranger 16:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * If someone's going to unblock you, it's not going to be me (especially since you appear to have also broken WP:3RR). Sorry. --khaosworks 16:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, in this case, since you are clearly aware of PMA's rules violation and refuse to correct it, you are as responsible as he himself and will be included in the RfC I will start once I'm unblocked. (And I have not broken 3RR, wholly aside from the fact that 3RR blocks are just 24 hours, not 99.) NoPuzzleStranger 16:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's your prerogative, of course. Look forward to seeing it. --khaosworks 16:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

3 rv
Hit the 3rv rule on the Insurgent article. JDR

Congo
Hello. The details for making a good disamibguation article are at Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I think you recent edit of Congo was very well written and enjoyable to read, but took to long to naviagate. I have reverted. --Commander Keane 08:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * The MoS also says: "For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." Congo is not merely a disambiguation page. It explains the nomenclature for both countries in a direct comparison, which properly belongs on this page rather than at the separate country articles. NoPuzzleStranger 10:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't like it with the paragraph's explaining about the countries in Africa (it takes too long to figure out which place you are looking for), but I'll agree to disagree. In the MoS (dab), it also says:
 * not to wikilink unneccessary words
 * to have the article being linked to at the begining of each line
 * Not no pipe links
 * I have adjusted the bottom half of Congo accordingly. --Commander Keane 11:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

SUPERLASIK
Just got word of the discussion thanks to Kappa. I didn't do the initial speedy. I re-speedied it. There had been several recreations of the article, so I protected it. I don't wish to fight with you, but I would ask that you please not hold me under a microscope. :^) - Lucky 6.9 01:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The content was different. In that case you can't speedy as a recreation. Curps' deletion of the original version may have been valid, but your deletion of the latest version wasn't. I don't wish to fight with you either, but I won't look on when you delete stubs just because they're short. NoPuzzleStranger 01:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I hadn't noticed that the content was different. In the meantime, I've reverted the other two articles that raised concern. Thanks for your patience. - Lucky 6.9 01:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect
Come on, now. Get serious. That was not an article pointing to that place in Iran. All you've done is format the thing and leave another snide remark in the edit summary. I've been patient and I've been nice. However, if you insist on second-guessing and micromanaging my edits, we are going to have some issues. - Lucky 6.9 22:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was an illiterate stub, you could have speedied that one. But a redirect to Iran made no sense at all, since that article says nothing about Aznaveh. Same goes for many of your redirects. If you continue to do invalid speedies and redirects, we may indeed have some issues. NoPuzzleStranger 22:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Don't double-talk me and don't you even think of trying to turn this around on me. I speedied some other stubs I thought were illiterate and you raked me over the coals. Frankly, I'm convinced you're Gzornenplatz because he used to do exactly the same thing you're doing right now. He formatted garbage and tried blaming me for misdirecting them in the first place. If that article was so illiterate, then why did you see fit to remove the redirect and format the illiteracy? Apparently, some other users have drawn the same conclusion, and I came to the conclusion before ever laying eyes on your talk page. I don't care if you are or not. You fish your side of the pond and I'll fish mine. Please stop following me around this site. Do we have a deal? Answer yes or no and please spare me the excess verbiage. - Lucky 6.9 23:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't want a response, don't post a comment. So I can't spare you the answers. The other stubs you speedied were not illiterate like Aznaveh, which would have been a valid speedy since it didn't establish a clear context. In any case your redirect made no sense. I could have just reverted the redirect and added a speedy tag, but while I was at it, I thought I can just as well fix it into a valid stub which is no longer illiterate. You're convinced I'm Gzornenplatz but you don't care if I am or not? Fine, then I wonder why you even mentioned it. Talking about the conclusions of other users, incidentally, your talk page shows that plenty of people have come to the same conclusion as I regarding your speedies. As to your last question: No. NoPuzzleStranger 23:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I know an Internet troll when I see one, so I'll keep this simple. I plan to continue to contribute exactly as I have for the last eighteen months. Don't like it? File an RfA. One more smarmy edit and/or edit summary and I'll save you the trouble. - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I also plan to contribute exactly as I have. If the necessary undeletions caused by your improper speedies continue to accumulate, an RfC will certainly be filed. And accusing serious contributors as "Internet trolls" will not help you there. NoPuzzleStranger 16:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. - Lucky 6.9 16:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Monique deMoan
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Adding "Notable" does not assert notability. Please do not remove the speedy deletion notice until an administrator has decided whether the article is notable or not. ral 315  22:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Where have I added "nonsense" to Wikipedia? If asserting that the subject is notable does not assert notability, then pray tell what does? I removed your notice because it wasn't just a recreation. You will have to give another reason. NoPuzzleStranger 22:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Recreation does not just refer to a VERBATIM copy. And notability is asserted by showing that the subject is notable, not just saying it.   ral  315  22:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, recreating an article that is currently on VfU just because you are losing that vote unanimously is a WP:POINT. Adding one word to the article does not escape speedy redeletion, and nor will adding the word "notable". Disruption such as this can get you blocked if you persist. If you really want that article around, then write a better one yourself rather than merely getting angry about it. -Splash 22:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't care about this particular article (I didn't create the first version), I'm just trying to find out in general how a stub like this is supposed to "assert notability". NoPuzzleStranger 22:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't recreate articles which do not have a consensus to undelete at VfD. This is considered vandalism. Repeated behavior could cause you to be blocked from editing. Zoe 23:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't recreate the same content. I created an article with a different content. There has been no VfD to the effect that the topic can't have any article ever. NoPuzzleStranger 23:36, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 24 hours for repeated recreation of the article. 23:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gee, you obviously have no other answer to what I said eh? I repeat: there was no VfD, and there is no rule that prohibits recreation of a speedied article with different content. NoPuzzleStranger 23:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

You recreated the article with substantially the same one-line content as before... instead of merely adding "notable" and adding the number of Google hits (it is not really encyclopedic style to mention how many Google hits), why didn't you spend a few minutes of research to expand the stub? You could then have created an article that would meet the assertion-of-notability standard (it's not a very high standard to meet), or indeed, an article that could perhaps even pass VfD. The original speedy deletion was valid by the criteria (based on the original content) and you could have spent a few minutes of effort before recreating it, to avoid the subsequent mess. -- Curps 00:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Truce?
Ok, I'll answer here rather than at AN/I.
 * 1) This is marginally true of the original article, I'll give that. But simply removing the d tag will almost always be reverted, original author or no. I imagine you know as well as I do that the single most effective way of rescuing a dying stub is to expand it a fraction and give it a stub template. It takes about 30 seconds.
 * 2) Adding a single word is, fairly straightforwardly, substantial identicality, and the VfU discussion makes that clear. In fact, the CSD is sometimes considered to apply to an article which is written differently but which presents the same content, so verbatim isn't required.
 * 3) I'm sorry, I just picked that off the VfU discussion and looked at the diff without looking at the history.
 * 4) I agree with nearly all of the cases you brought to VfU, as do most voters. But, having brought it there, you must live with the decision rendered. Instead, you rather flew off the handle when the votes went against you. A cooler-headed response would have been much better.

Anyway, the article as rewritten on the /Temp page by Tony Sidaway will be kept, I expect, although I don't plan to vote in the VfD. I'm sorry I called you a "minor vandal". And, whilst I maintain that you could (and should) have approached the progress of this VfU differently, I don't see that we need fight with each other any further. You evidently make good contributions and I hope you carry on doing so. Wikipedia will probably get a new article out of this whole wheel-war and that, at least, is something worth having. Truce? -Splash 02:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm not seeking any fights. But note that this wasn't so much about that particular article but about the larger issue of short stubs in general, because Lucky is routinely deleting them. And I'm trying to establish some clarity about the "assertion of notability" rule. The longer temp article that now exists does not assert notability any more than the original one. It just lists a lot of movie titles - but who says those are notable? In theory they could all be irrelevant trash few people have ever seen - you can't tell from the article. Those people who demand "assertion of notability" are just using this as a pretext to use against very short articles. NoPuzzleStranger 03:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflicts?
Whenever you have an edit conflict that doesn't give a message thereof, and accidentally wipe other edits as a result, please notify developer User:Brion Vibber. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
I am requesting arbitration on the grounds that you are the same person as Wik and Gzornenplatz. --Michael Snow 19:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You can thank me for figuring out the anagram. Should've quit while you were ahead. - Lucky 6.9 19:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pick Up the Phone Booth and Die


A tag has been placed on Pick Up the Phone Booth and Die, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Pick Up the Phone Booth and Die for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pick Up the Phone Booth and Die 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/Pick Up the Phone Booth and Die 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. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)