User talk:Tulkolahten/Archive8

User talk:CoolKoon
Don't give other users vandal warning templates when their edits aren't vandalism. Khoikhoi 11:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not vandalism, it's unsourced POV. Give the user needsource if you must, but don't give him vandal warning templates. Khoikhoi 11:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An offensive Nazi statement isn't vandalism either. Vandalism would be moving George Bush to George Bush ON WHEELS!!! How about comment2? Khoikhoi 11:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no problem. I'm Jewish, so there's no reason that I would agree with the Nazi POV. Khoikhoi 11:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Khoikhoi 11:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Kdyby v Polsku nebyli u moci de facto komunisté, sporné území by se jen tak nevrátilo do ČSR, jestli vůbec. - -Darwinek 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Ukradene bylo Cechy v roce 1920, takze roku 1938 se vratilo tam kam melo davno byt. A kdybysis precetl historicke dokumenty, tak bys vedel, ze v roce 1945 nebylo vubec jasne, ze se toto uzemi vrati Ceskoslovensku. Zcela klicovou roli zde sehraly politicke souvislosti a vliv komunistickych stran a hnuti v obou zemich. --Darwinek 21:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ja vim o nasi historii vic nez ty vole! To, co ti cesky historik nerekne je to, ze na tech uzemich nebylo jedineho Cecha. Ti se sem zacli srat az na konci 19. stoleti. Teprve po WWII tvorili realnou vetsinu. Je videt, ze mas typicke ceske mindraky ze stredoevropske malosti. Vase uzemi melo byt jen to, kde vas bylo hafo, vetsina. Kdyby jste nebyli taci nacionalisti a vzdali se uzemi, kde vas byla mensina, tak byste si usetrili hafo problemu, hlavne s Nemcema. Vychodni Prusy byly take stovky let nemecke, patri snad proto neoblomne Nemecku a nikdy jinak? --Darwinek 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A jinak mas bloka za WP:3RR. --Darwinek 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 00:12, 21:28, 21:53, 22:05. An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. --Darwinek 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) (cur) (last)  21:25, 21 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs) m (.clarification)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 21:05, 21 February 2007 Tulkolahten (Talk | contribs) (rvv)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 21:00, 21 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Tulkolahten (talk) to last version by Darwinek)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 20:53, 21 February 2007 Tulkolahten (Talk | contribs) (rvv)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 20:41, 21 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Tulkolahten (talk) to last version by Darwinek)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 20:28, 21 February 2007 Tulkolahten (Talk | contribs) (→History)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 09:02, 21 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs) m (.important info)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 23:12, 20 February 2007 Tulkolahten (Talk | contribs) m (→History)

You did the same but if you disagree it doesn't mean you can block me and win the edit and also please be civil in your comments on my talk page and avoid more personal attacks. That's obvious abuse of admin rights.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Current version is compromise, your removal is confirmed. No problem here yet. On a personal note, don't write to me anymore. I'm done with you. --Darwinek 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can unblock you, if you promise, you will stay away from me. --Darwinek 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Proc tu takhle blbnem ? Ja jsem to editoval proto, ze jsem si myslel, ze komunisti prisli az v roce 1948 a ne bezprostredne po valce. Akorat ty jsi to zacal zbesile revertovat, tak jsem si dloubnul no, trochu jsi to prehnal, ale ja taky.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mel bych se omluvit, mam uz par dni za sebou blby den a nechal jsem se unest. Oba jsme to prehnali :(. Jinak komunisti u moci nebyli oficialne, ale to ani v CSR, ale de facto uz to tady i tam sefovali. --Darwinek 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Taky se omlouvam,ze jsem to prehnal.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. - Darwinek 23:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Still blocked :-(  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

((unblock|1=I was blocked because of 3RR but actually it is not correct, there were 2 reverts only, see this. Darwinek abused his admin rights because he is personally involved in the conflict. So I request unblock by another administrator.Thanks. Tulko))
 * I've contacted the blocking admin for comment; in the meantime, please bear with us, and thanks for your patience. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak Czech, but looking at the edit history of the page, it appears that Tulko didn't break 3RR at all. He only reverted three times... Khoikhoi 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you unblock me please ?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 07:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 08:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked the autoblock page, and I can't find you on it. I'll ask someone else to check it out. Khoikhoi 08:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Khoikhoi asked for some help finding our missing autoblock -- found and disabled. You should be able to edit, now. Still hoping for some response from Darwinek; we'll see what comes of that. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have commented it and apologized already yesterday (23:36). It is above in the Czech language, as it was personal between the two of us. Regards - Darwinek 08:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Darwinek apologized and me too, so all is solved now. Thanks all.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To jo, neměl bych editovat Wikipedii během špatných dní a také pod vlivem omamných látek. :) - Darwinek 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Case vs. Investigation
Hm... if Major Zeman is the subject of the investigation, then I'd probably say "30 Investigations of Major Zeman." If he's the one investigating other people, I guess I'd say "Major Zeman's 30 investigations of ____." Interesting question. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I see. Hm. I think either would work okay, there. The order might actually need to switch, though -- in a lot of European languages I know (very small amounts of!), "the x of the y," would mean x belongs to y, but my experience in English is that "the x of the y" is more using y to describe x. So, if it makes sense, saying "investigations of MZ" sounds more like MZ is the one being investigated, instead of the one doing the investigating -- "MZ's investigations" would make that a little more clear. But between the two, investigation/case, either seems fine. "30 cases" is a little less of a mouthfull. :p I'm not expert on translation, though. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirty Major Zeman's Cases
Personally, I don't think it's necessary to split the list of episodes into a separate article. After all, look how the article looks on Slovak Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you want to write information (such as plot summaries) about the episodes themselves, you are more than welcome. - Mike Rosoft 13:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NL
Fernet ve velkem mnozstvi. Neni dobre.--Darwinek 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Ribbon of National Merit
Hello Tulkolahten, I would like to award some people with the Ribbon of National Merit from the WikiProject Czech Republic. Where am I suppose to put it - on their user pages or their talk pages? Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: don't push the Czech names here so hard, it doesn't make any sense
Well, I was refering to the Zahrada Čech, so your reply is mostly pointless. It really doesn't make sense to list such names in Czech language especialy not before the English translation. Regards.--Pethr 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we're fine:) Would you mind if I removed the Czech translation of Zahrada Čech altogether? I can't see how can this information be helpful to anybody.--Pethr 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean exactly? I think it's fine now. The German name needs to be there. I noticed you had some dispute over something there. I also noticed that you tend to think that Czechoslovakia or nation-like state of Czechs has been always here. The only thing I'd recommend to you would be to be more keen to compromise especially on Sudeten issues as Darwinek and others adviced you already. The point is that present Czech affiliation to history is either nationalistitic or slightly revisionistic. I'm not sure about Litoměřice but it seems probabl that there were times when the city had single name if you know what I mean and this should be probably noted in the article. On the other hand there is no reason to extensively comment on Benes decrees and whatever in article about minor Czech city.--Pethr 15:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the city was indeed called Leitmeritz when the pensioners chose it in 18th century or whenever. I don't know, I don't want to change the name in historic contexts just think that it would be good idea to mention that the city was known as Leitmeritz until the 20th century. This of course needs some research I have no idea if it is correct but I guess it more or less is.--Pethr 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Karlove...
Tnx for notice. I am not suprised to see Matthead pushing for the move - sigh. Do note the existence of WP:NCGN which was designed to make revisionist POV-pushers go away. Btw, you may be interesed in discussion at [] - I believe it concerns also part of Czech and Slovakian lands, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack
Please refrain from personal and Ad Hominem attacks on me in the future. Ameise -- chat 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, however, I am indeed an American; born and raised in America, fourth generation German Immigrant, something like eighth or ninth generation Polish Immigrant. When I say that people here use forms such as 'Carlsbad', 'Stettin', 'Breslau' more oft than the modern local forms, I am not lying; even people from countries such as Poland or Czechia who come here tend to use the Anglo-German forms; a Polish transfer student here was telling me about where he was from, and he said "It's a small town near Gdansk, uh, Danzig.". It simply pains me to see Anglic forms of names simply disappearing with forms that are not only difficult for us to pronounce, but also to read and spell; many names even use accents which are not on English keyboards. Karlovy Vary doesn't -mean- anything in English; you could always use "Carl's Bath", which is a literal translation of "Carlsbad" and pays homage to the Roman ancestry of the city. Otherwise, Carlsbad as a name is VERY well known in the USA; generally from Carlsbad caverns, but no one, when they hear "Carlsbad" as a city, would think Baden, if they know anything about geography, they would likely think Bohemia -- either way, though, the name Carlsbad is both easier to understand, better known in general, and is more "English-sounding" than "Karlovy Vary". Ameise -- chat 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Being that Montreal actually HAS an English name, Montreal makes perfect sense to me. Carlsbad also has an English name, and it also makes perfect sense to me. I assume that you also do not like the names 'Pilsen' or 'Prague'? Well, I don't like the name Plzen. I tend to not like names that I can't pronounce. Not to be overly aggressive, but it may be offensive, but it's historically and linguistically accurate; the historical German populations (who were expelled following World War 2) lent the city names to English, NOT Czechs. Ameise -- chat 13:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, let me approach it this way: If I were in Bohemia, saying that you had to change the official Czech name to Carlsbad, you should be upset. But I'm not. Instead, you are on an English website, saying that we have to change the natural sounding English name (Carlsbad) to a very, very strange sounding (to us) name such as 'Karlovy Vary'.
 * For example; in Mexico, they call 'New York' 'Nueve York' (or something to that tune)... it gets under my nerves, but that's when it's in their language; English broadcasting calls it 'New York'. English broadcasting also uses 'Cologne' and 'Munich' when referring to what in Germany are called 'Köln' and 'München'. I doubt that names such as 'Warszawa' and 'Praha' will ever be used signifigant in English, as names such as Warsaw and Prague are stuck in the English lexicon; I have strong suspicions that the latter (Prague) is related to the German form 'Prag'. What I'm trying to say is that however offensive a name may be to YOU, it's not to US, and this is OUR Wikipedia, in OUR language. The article for Joseph Stalin probably offends people in Russia who think that he was some kind of god (like Chicagoans think that Mike Ditka was a god), but that doesn't change facts. Ameise -- chat 13:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhh, can you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you're saying. Ameise -- chat 20:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I actually have no idea what you were trying to say; I am very poor at understanding English that isn't the same as mine -- that's why I have trouble speaking with people from the Deep South or England. Ameise -- chat 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you actually believe that I am from the United States is irrelevant; what you believe does not matter to me: if you choose to believe me, fine, if you don't, I cry in regards to your ignorance on the matter. Ameise -- chat 00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. Move
Hello Tulkolahten. I have now moved Settlement in the East back to Ostsiedlung, as you requested. Keep up the good work. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Itzhak Stern
Stern worked for Schindler as the accountant not because he was an industrialist and not because he was Nazi party member. The info that Schindler was Nazi is irrelevant in the relation to the fact that Stern was his accountant.

Czech Cities
I am not trying to rename Czech cities, I am trying to give them their correct English names on the English wikipedia. Unless you believe that the Czech Language is the correct language of the world, in which case we should change Prague to Praha, Pilsen to Plzen, and whatever other strangeness. Antman -- chat 18:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Raději pomlčet. :) --Darwinek 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave me alone
Leave me alone, already. I'm getting very sick of you harassing me. Antman -- chat 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, how many more posts do I have to make just to get everybody to behave here? Stop pestering each other and running after each other, all of you. Tulko, please stop edit-warring on other people's talk pages - while I'm not convinced Antman's spreading these kinds of comments everywhere was particularly constructive, for you as a dispute opponent to unilaterally remove them is an absolute no-no. Stop it, now, all of you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re., it's not up to you to set down the rules here. As you must have noticed, I actually agree that the block should get a fair review by a third pair of eyes, despite my agreeing with the block to an extent I've even been fighting for having it reviewed again. You've made your point known, so has Antman, you are both equally entitled to make your opinions known, and now that you've done so I recommend to let it rest. Your approaching CSCWEM with the request while the standard unblock request was running anyway wasn't particularly good style either (it's called forum-shopping); Antman's running after you was more of the same. Now stop it and let others sort it out.


 * By the way, once this has been sorted out I will gladly offer myself as an informal mediator about the question whether "Heinrich von X" or "Heinrich of X" or "Henry of X" is more appropriate for medieval German personalitites, or what the most common English name is for Carlsbad/whatever. But if I then hear any more bickering or insinuations or ad hominem's from you guys about each other's perceived nationalistic motivations, from whatever side, I'll hand out "pot-calling-kettle-black" blocks for disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ribbon :-)
Hi Tulkolahten,

Thanks for the ribbon! You said, "Please feel free as a holder of the 1st class barnstar to hold its ribbon." Actually, I'm not a holder of the 1st class barnstar. :-) But I appreciate the ribbon! --Ling.Nut 19:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I didn't notice you'd put it on my user page. Thanks for the barnstar! --Ling.Nut 20:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nejde, musí se to řešit domluvou. Jinak Gene bude brzo před ArbCom. :)--Darwinek 18:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Hádej ... :))) --Darwinek 18:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To je blbost a toho se nikdy nedrž, kdyby se toho WP skutečně držela, tak jsou tu všechny jména bez diakritiky. Bacha na to!--Darwinek 18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Requested move
Thanks for the notice, I have fixed my closing summary. I was thinking faster than typing last night. Teke ( talk ) 21:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:
Come on, Tulkolahten, let's be serious, Copernicus' nationality is controversial and you know that. Read through the discussions on the talk page, you'll realise full enough that Encarta and Brit. aren't going to be enough. I, as a Scotsman, could not give a crap what nationality is claimed for Copernicus on wiki; but I know full well enough that these revert wars are unsolvable. It's best really to leave it and keep your believe in his nationality away from the main page. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As so much has been written on Copernicus, one would need to go deep into archival material to achieve "original research". The argument does not center on his geographical origin (the land is in Poland), but his ethnicity. Eventually in time as nationalities come fully to be indentified with modern or historical states, this controversy will go away ... but not yet. If you wish to insist on his Polish nationality ... be prepared for a fight (not from me, of course :) ); and you'll get much better sources than Encarta flying at you too. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

With time even the concept of ethnicity will become an erstwhile pretention. Find a copy of Jack Hitt's article in the July 2005 edition of Harpers; "Mighty White of You". It is worth the time. Our own cultural complexes and anxieties diminish our ability to reach a common ground--Agrofe 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

New Europe
Ah, I missed the lower part. I thought it was just the sentence regarding ignorance being edited in and out. My bad. But that sentence needs to be discussed before its modified. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Check for yourself :) Requests for adminship/Halibutt  // Halibutt 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignorace

 * I think it would be best if you review this, and start editing accordingly, Thanks. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey buddy, pardon your ignorance, but it is correct English actually, for example, check out the article Zurich-oh wait-OOPS actually thats a redirect to the correct name: Zürich. I guess I'm a vandal again :(. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon your ignorance, but it was Brünn when it was ruled by the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, and Austria-Hungary-What the...Hey! Check it out! A 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article!

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, some argument you are holding up! That page doesn't say anything relevant to this conversation! And like i said, it was Brünn when it was ruled by the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, and Austria-Hungary -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember when i said, it was Brünn when it was ruled by the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, and Austria-Hungary? Well, according to the Czech Republic article it was formed in the 9th century(801-900) and wasn't independent until 1918(WWI), and according to history, the first political entity it was ever a part of was in/as the Holy Roman Empire(circa 1050 AD), From 1477-1490 it was under the rule of Hungary for a short time, and the rest of its history it is under the Holy Roman Empire, Austrian Empire(Hapsburg Monarchy sort), and Austria-Hungary, and believe it or not but it was part of the Austrian Empire during the Napoleonic Era! So hmm....

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Germanic tribes for 900 years (Boii, Marcomanni, Suevi, Huns) (apprx.500 BC-400 AD)
 * Mixed Germanic-Slavic-Turkic tribes for 332 years (Avars -Vandals -Huns -Mongols -Bulgars -Magyars ) (400 AD - 732 AD)
 * Slavo - Ugric tribes for 318 years (732 AD-1050 AD)
 * Holy Roman Empire(1050-1477; 427 years / 1050-1803; 753 years)
 * Moravia to Hungarian Empire(1477-1490;13 years)
 * Moravia to Holy Roman Empire(1490-1803;313 years)
 * Austrian Empire/Hapsburg Monarchy(1803-1867;64 years)
 * Austria-Hungary(1867-1918;51 years)
 * Czechoslovakia(1918-1938;20 years)
 * Germany (1938-1945;7 years)
 * Sudetenland to Nazi Germany(1938;7 years)
 * Czechoslovakian Government-in-Exile/Nazi puppet government of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (1939-1945;6 years)
 * Czechoslovakia(1945-1968;23 years)
 * Czech Socialist(Communist) Republic/Federation of Czechoslovakia(1969-1989;20 years)
 * Czech Republic/Federation of Czechoslovakia (1989-1993;4 years)
 * Czech Republic (1993-present(2007);14 years)

Well pardon your ignorance and insults, but both my Barnes and Noble Atlas of World History(circa 2006), and my Parragon Atlas of World History(circa 2005) show it as Brünn until the World War I era. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch)

I like your style! "Revert Original Research" Haha, Nice! -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh stop it! You are going to hurt my feelings... :( -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Taky ho nemám rád, ale má pravdu. Do roku 1918 to byl Brünn, smiř se s tím. :) --Darwinek 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

R9tgokunks
He's been blocked for 4 days. In the future, ask him to try to discuss his edits on the talk pages, and if he doesn't, then perhaps admin intervention would be needed. BTW, it's still not vandalism. :-) Khoikhoi 05:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I've been reviewing his unblock request, and I've noticed several objectionable interactions between you and this user: Accordingly, I've shortened his block to two days and extended this block to you also. When it's over, have a cup of tea with him and discuss this. I have no opinion on the issue, but it strikes me as one that reasonable persons may disagree about. Consensus and calm discussion is important here. Consider getting a third opinion. Sandstein 06:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * edit-warring, with him, on many pages about whether to call a city "Brno" or "Brünn" in historical contexts, and falsely labeling your edits in this content dispute as vandalism reverts (e.g. ) and leaving misleading vandalism warnings about it
 * personally attacking the other editor (implicitly calling him a Nazi,, ) instead of trying to calmly discuss this historical naming issue someplace.
 * I've never called him Nazi :-O  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)