User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2010/January

Mass killings under Communist regimes
I have made a request for clarification about whether Mass killings under Communist regimes and similar articles are included under the EEML topic ban. If you would like to reply, my query is posted at. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed your comment to Fifelfoo: "But taking a "pre-poll" in this particular context, combined with the bad faithed "request for clarification" looks very much like an attempt at collusion and gaming in order to succeed where previous AfDs have failed."  I made the request myself and did not discuss the request with anyone beforehand.  Other than mentioning the request in the MKUCR talk page, I did not mention my request to anyone except those persons listed in the request (all of whom are subject to the arbitration and unlikely to agree with me).  I raised the request after Martintg stated that MKUCR regimes was exempt from the arbitration decision.  Since I do not agree with him what action do you suggest I should have taken?  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pinzón Brothers
Re: 5x:

Oh dear, that's too bad. But I have nothing useful to add further to the article. I suppose I could move some lengthy quotations from a notes section into the article proper, but frankly I'm not that concerned about my DYK count, and they are better where they are.

This word-counting does seem a bit bizarre when most of what was there before was poorly cited schoolboy writing that did not really merit being there in the first place. - Jmabel | Talk 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
Hey! I saw you had done some work on the list of nobel laureates. I am currently working on the Nobel Prize article. Since it is a top importance article and not even GA class I am trying to make it a GA article and perhaps further after that. However, I'm in a state now where I could use some help. I need a new pair (several pairs in fact) of eyes to look at the article and the talk page for improving prose, debation of different things and some sourcing. Do you got any possibility to help out?

Cheers --Esuzu 16:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, sounds like a worthy endeavor and I'd love to help. I might be a bit too busy for in depth research in the next few weeks (if not months and years) but I can definitely try do some improvements, etc.radek (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! Happy to hear that :)

Cheers --Esuzu 21:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Williamson trade-off model
Hello! Your submission of Williamson trade-off model at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Which hook would you prefer? Thanks for all the econ related articles though NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bork one.radek (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Matthead Discuß   18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning
Please take note of WP:AE (permalink).  Sandstein  14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Noted.

Dispute on Communist terrorism article
There is a dispute on the Communist terrorism article over keeping the section on History and ideology, much of which was sourced from Kautsky, within the article. Since you're an editor on the article, I thought you might want to contribute to the discussion. Mamalujo (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Ciudad Juarez
I noticed that no one has tackled your article on this topic over in DYK. I write about Mexico so I thought Id help out. While you have a LOT of good information and write well, I see very little in this article that discusses the treaty (what is in it) nor do I see how the events in the Results and Implementation section relate to the treaty. I was going to add that maybe the sections leading up to "The compromise" be shorter but given how confusing the Mexican Revolution was/is, maybe not. I think that if you discuss what the treaty contained and related subsequent events to the treaty, it should be OK.Thelmadatter (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea behind the background and compromise sections was to explain 1) what forced Diaz to agree to the treaty and 2) what made it possible for him to sign it (sidelining of more radical elements). The Aftermath was meant to emphasize that the treaty did not satisfy the Zapatistas, Orozco and many others and was pretty much superseded by later events pretty quickly. I'm going to try and spell out the exact provisions of the treaty more explicitly. If you want to cut down some of the compromise portions, please do so.radek (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I get the over all flow of the article and why you set it up this way. Let me see what you write before I make any premature cuts. Someone who is not familiar with Mexican history, which is most people, will need to see the connections spelled out very, very clearly. Im not familiar enough with the events (yet). I mostly write articles about cities, municipalities and states but that also requires learning about history. I rewrote the article on the Reform War and extended the biography of Miguel Hidalgo (content is in dispute but no one has changed anything), but Mexican history is a daunting task. Im happy to help out and learn more. I can read Spanish and I live in Mexico.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I reorganized the article a bit. Basically, I think that most of the information you though needed to be emphasized (the exact nature of the treaty) was already in there, but it was in the lede rather than having its own section. This was mostly due to how I developed the article - initially it was just going to be a little more than a stub but then I decided to expand it.
 * The Reform War and also the Cristero War are two topics that I would like to developed further in the future. For now the revolution is more than enough. And yes! I would very much appreciate some help with Spanish language sources as my knowledge of the language is spotty to say the least. Thanks again.radek (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and put a green check on the DYK nomination as it is much clearer how the terms of the treaty relate to the events before and after. My only other suggestion is to make that relation clearer in the lead. In this way, while someone is reading all the prior events, they have some idea of what it will lead up to.... that all the treaty did was get rid of Diaz, but not the Diaz system.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list
Per a motion at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: 1) Topic ban narrowed
 * The topic ban applied to is amended.  Radeksz may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used.  In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

2) Tagging and categorizing of unreferenced Poland-related BLPs allowed
 * The topic ban applied to is amended.  Radeksz may create a category for unreferenced Polish-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)