User talk:Skäpperöd: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:46, 22 August 2010

Welcome!

You can navigate through earlier posts on this page via this page's history.
Add a new section
I will respond here.

Contents

DYK for Lutici

On May 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lutici, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oñate treaty

On June 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oñate treaty, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Okay. B-Machine (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the quick instructions on how to edit Kruszwica's history section. I was reading that section and immediately recognized it as coming from Lewinski-Corwin's book, because I had literally started reading the book earlier in the day. I felt compelled to create a user account for the sole purpose inquiring on how to give credit to this book, but now that I have it will probably try to contribute here and there where I can.

I saw on your account profile you are from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and was pleased to see someone is working towards expanding English based pages detailing the region and it's history.

Thanks again.

--MeckPomm (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Treaty of Constantinople (1700)

On June 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Treaty of Constantinople (1700), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Treaty of Kiel

On June 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Treaty of Kiel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Treaties of Cölln and Mewe

On July 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Treaties of Cölln and Mewe, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notificationAs somebody who took part in the previous move discussion, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]1938 rename of East Prussian placenamesHello Skäpperöd. Somebody suggested that 1938 rename of East Prussian placenames might be a good candidate for WP:DYK, but it's a little short at 1200 characters. Do you think you could expand the article a little bit to bring it to 1500 characters? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I added a short section on parallel renaming in Silesia. Perhaps the scope and title of the article is better changed to be more general than just East Prussia. BTW, the source I added also has information on the subsequent renaming by Polish authorities after the war which could be useful in the parallel article.radek (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thank you Radeksz. It's long enough for DYK now. I suppose you should raise the question of scope and title on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hi. I've nominated 1938 rename of East Prussian placenames, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]DYK for Lancken-Granitz dolmens

On July 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lancken-Granitz dolmens, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1938 rename of East Prussian placenames

On July 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1938 rename of East Prussian placenames, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

good to knowthat Wikipedia already had an article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chy%C5%BCans&diff=next&oldid=374239532. However, when redirecting, can you please remember to carry over inter'wiki links and the like. Radek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)Peace at fifty?The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal Well I look back at your previous DYK entries and notice a fine balance between biographies, wars and treaties. I haven't added them up myself but I'm hoping there are more treaties than wars. On the other hand if there are more wars than treaties then ... could you fix the balance of the scores before you get to 100? More seriously - thanks from me and the wiki. Fifty is a real achievement. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thank you very much - I think I wrote many more articles about treaties, but I haven't counted either. Much appreciated Skäpperöd (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Archaeologists discover Britain's 'oldest houseThis story was posted to the BBC News Website, you may find it of interest http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10929343 --Woogie10w (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Your harassment

Unresolved – Awaiting outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchwyzI leave the project. Too much harassment and stalking. I did like to do disambiguation work, fixing lots of wrong incoming links to ambiguous article titles etc. Hope the stalkers can have a nice party now. ADIOS! Schwyz (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Good bye. [1] [2] [3] [4] Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hello again? I do not oppose you coming back and do uncontroversial dab work, but not like that. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]A good dayMy compliments for keeping your nerve in a big moving thing today. Good editor. Here is my Written Barnstar. -DePiep (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thank you! I appreciated your comments, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]DYK for Veste Landskron

On 18 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Veste Landskron, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Courcelles 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 |text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#June 21 2010|June 21, 2010]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Treaty of Constantinople (1700)]]''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201006/Treaty_of_Constantinople_(1700) quick check] )</small> and add it to [[WP:DYKSTATS|DYKSTATS]] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
 }}  <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 12:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
-{{dtop}}
-==...==
-{{resolved|Nationalist blocked indef }}
-([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PolskiNarodowiec1985&diff=373151379&oldid=373141341 block diff])
-Hello.
-I am not attacking anyone innocent but German writers who lay claims for 1/3 of Poland for Germany. In fact it is about 2/5 of Germany {north-eastern} that is former Western Slavic land {the Velettis,the Obodrites}.Poles are a Western Slavic Nation.Yet no Pole lays claims to Germany!! When will the Germans gracefully accept Poland's western border on the Odra and Nysa Łużycka rivers?
-When?I am a Polish nationalist and I will always hate German cheauvinists!
-What's outrageous is that Wikipedia has become '''Bash-the-Pole-pedia''' (alternative name could be:'''Serve-the-German-pedia''').On basically every Poland-related topic there are overt but very cleverly-made manipulations and lies that are to diminish/erase Polish influence and enlarge German influence in contemporary and past Polish territory.
-Ps.If you still stick to your point of view then I challenge you to debate me instead of cowardly fleeig into censorship territory!
-~~PolskiNarodowiec1985~~
-{{unsigned|PolskiNarodowiec1985}}
-*Unfortunately, since nationalists by definition exclude all non-nationalist views from their narrowed, irrational fantasies they call [[WP:TRUTH|"truth"]], and reject unwelcomed views and facts based on the ethnicity or the non-nationalist political stance of their counterparts, I am afraid that furthering this discussion is pointless. I sincerely hope that you once meet an individual of any ethnicity you now condemn and fall in love with this person so deeply and unconditionally that at once it becomes clear to you how poor a living it is on that nationalist island. Or that you discover ethnicities you now condemn in your own ancestry. For now, I repeated my request for you to be blocked at the talk page of the admin who issued a final warning to you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fences_and_windows&diff=next&oldid=369770839]. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
-{{dbot}}
 ==DYK for Treaty of Kiel==
@@ Line 82: / Line 65: @@
 }}  <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
-== From history. ==
-From history-as if in historical knowledge(Wielbark is one of the locations where Polish national movement in XIX/XX century was active). Regarding HK edits-I checked user contributions to see all recent locations that could be affected by introduction of Nazi name. Hope that clears it up.
-Best regards
---[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 18:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
-{{dtop}}
-== Your mass revert. ==
-I would appreciate if you had stopped erasing my edits without any discussion on the talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Germany&diff=373521473&oldid=373259815]--[[User:Jacurek|Jacurek]] ([[User talk:Jacurek|talk]]) 01:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
-:Hello, topic-banned sockpuppeteer. I would appreciate if you had not used your recently unblocked Jacurek account for erasing factually accurate information in the first place. Seriously, find something else to do. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 05:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
-::Before you make another mass revert on the changes you do not agree with please discuss the issues on the talk page. --[[User:Jacurek|Jacurek]] ([[User talk:Jacurek|talk]]) 06:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
-:::Why can't you just [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITVQs6QdZko enjoy the summer]. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 07:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
-[''Molobo: moved to article talk and responded there [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Wroc%C5%82aw&diff=next&oldid=373688432]'']
-{{dbot}}
 ==DYK for Treaties of Cölln and Mewe==
@@ Line 167: / Line 134: @@
 :Good bye. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=378712523#Request_admin_assistance_to_undo_controversial_page_move] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schwyz&oldid=378695716#FYI_2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JaGa&oldid=378702657#Moves_and_User:Schwyz] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Schwyz] [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 13:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz|Hello again?]] I do not oppose you coming back and do uncontroversial dab work, but not like that. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 06:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
-{{dtop}}
-== Your revert against the Gdansk vote ==
-{{resolved|No violation per Sandstein.}}
-Skapperod please remember:''For Gdansk and other locations that''' share a history''' between Germany and Poland''.
-When there is no shared history we do not use double naming in articles. Thus no Lech Wałęsa in Gdańsk(Danzig), nor Johann Georg Hamann was born in Königsberg(Królewiec).
-I hope that is clear to you now. Please undo the revert you made  here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Kolberg_%28Seven_Years%27_War%29&diff=prev&oldid=378740392] as no shared history is seen in the article.
---[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 17:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
-:You likely misread the Gdanzig vote, or the history of that town. Kolberg/Kolobrzeg has a "shared history" (German before 1945, Polish since), ergo double naming applies there. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-::No, you misread the Gdansk vote. Or are you suggesting that Poznan 1956 riots should have Posen in them, and Lech Walesa strikes in Gdańsk should have Dazing in them, and every mention of Koengsberg should be with Królewiec ? We only use double naming in cases when there is shared history. Not in every instance where there is alternative name, otherwise all modern locations, events, persons that were born in Wrocław, Gdańsk, Szczecin would have German names attached to them-and likewise all German places, names, events in areas that were once in Poland in Middle Ages and later would have Polish names attached to them. It's rather obvious this is not the case. --[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 10:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-I really wonder why you removed the modern name of Kolberg from the article, and base your argumentation on the Gdanzig vote - it doesn't make sense, there must be something I miss? And while we have this discussion, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Stralsund_%281711%E2%80%931715%29&diff=prev&oldid=378729146 do exactly the sort of edit you argue against here, with an e/s "double naming rules for shared history locations"] (to which I have no objection). For pretty much all en.wiki editors the Gdanzig vote has been an unambiguous guideline for years now, and as is obvious from the afore-linked edit of yours, your casual understanding of "shared history" does not differ from the consensus reading of that phrase. Atm I have no intention to take part in any kind of re-opening Pandora's box. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 11:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-:Please point to any shared history within this event.Once more: are you suggesting that Poznan 1956 riots should have Posen in them, and Lech Walesa strikes in Gdańsk should have Dazing in them, and every mention of Koengsberg should be with Królewiec ? We only use double naming in cases when there is shared history.
-:''And while we have this discussion, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Stralsund_%281711%E2%80%931715%29&diff=prev&oldid=378729146 do exactly the sort of edit you argue against here, with an e/s "double naming rules for shared history locations"]''
-:Incorrect-The Siege of Stralsund has Poles mentioned as patricipants so shared history applies(T''hus, when the Swedish forces withdrew to their fortified strongholds of [[Stralsund]], Stettin([[Szczecin]]) and [[Wismar]], 6,000 Saxons,''' 6,000 Poles''', and 12,000 Russians'' ). :There is no mention of Poles/Polish history in the article you restored Kołobrzeg into.  --[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 11:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-I suggested nothing. I just said that my understanding of the Gdanzig vote regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Kolberg_%28Seven_Years%27_War%29&diff=prev&oldid=378740392 this edit of mine, which you labeled "revert against the Gdansk vote"], is perfectly fine and resembles the understanding of the vast majority of editors. Which I sincerely believe is the case. And what I sincerely believe to be not the case is that a contingent of nation X in a siege army besieging a town in country Y makes that town have a "shared history" between X and Y. As "reverting against the Gdanzig vote" would be an offense that, according to the same vote, is equal to vandalism (a quite serious charge!), I suggest we involve an AE admin to certify or discard that charge? [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 12:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-:Are you suggesting that all Germans born in Breslau should have Wrocław in their birthplace becasue the city was Polish in Middle Ages, even if they had nothing to do with Poland/Poles? The shared history concerns only the events/places/people where there is a shared history. Otherwise we would have Poznan/Posen riots in 1956 and Królewiec in every place where Koegnisberg is mentioned. I hope you understand now what means. Anyway AE is for arbitration enforcement, Gdansk vote was a guideline that didn't come from Arb case, most people don't even know its not a policy but a guideline. In theory one can violate this at will, altough it has become a standard on Wiki.Anyway-I hope you will not continue to suggest that all places should be double named even when it doesn't concern any shared history.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 12:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-See [[Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE:_Biographies|Gdanzig vote on biographies]]. I proposed AE admins because of their experience in EE matters, including the Gdanzig vote. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 13:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-:For instance:your interpretation would mean that Jarosław Wałęsa article should use Danzig in his birthplace and residence: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaros%C5%82aw_Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa], despite the fact that there is no shared history in the article or in the person's life. Do you believe that is correct? And if so should we add Królewiec, Wroclaw, Szczecin to all those Germans who never had to do antyhing with Poland?--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 12:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-Per [[Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE:_Biographies|this]], the question is not whether Danzig or Gdansk should be used ''exclusively'', the question is whether it is Danzig (Gdansk) or Gdansk (Danzig) in the first reference to the place in biography articles. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 13:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-:To demonstrate even clearer-since Prussia gained Warsaw in Partitions of Poland, if we would use your interpretation than from time onwards all mentions of Warsaw in articles about Poland and Poles born there would have to use term Warschau. Now, are you sure you are correct?--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 12:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-Warsaw has an established English name: Warsaw. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 13:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-::And Poznań has established English name as well:Poznan.Yet I can see several double naming rules applied to the city. --[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 16:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-===3O===
-Skäpperöd asked me to provide a third opinion. Insofar as I understand the Gdansk vote, the town of (then) [[Kolberg]] is among the "locations that share a history between Germany and Poland", having changed hands from one to the other, and therefore, as Skäpperöd proposes, "the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names" (i.e., a reference to the current Polish name).
-MyMoloboaccount's concern seems to be that if that is so, every (now) Polish town would need also to be given its former German name whenever it is mentioned. I don't know what the practice about this is, but common sense suggests to me that this would only be needed where the former name is actually useful to the reader. So for example I would write "N.N. was born 1500 in Danzig (now Gdansk)", because the reader may be familiar with the modern name "Gdansk" but not the older "Danzig". But it makes no sense to write "N.N. is a pop star born 1980 in Gdansk (formerly Danzig)", because an article about a modern pop star has no relation to the city's history.  But that should probably be discussed on some relevant project page with people who have experience . <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 14:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&oldid=378881003#Advanced_3O_request Thank you] for your time. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 14:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-::Thank you Sandstein-the current practice is that we use double naming for locations other than Gdańsk only in cases where there is shared history-so if there is no German or Polish history then there is no double name respective to the history absent. It is a good practice in my view and there is no need to change it. Also a minor note-we usually don't use now XXX-since it would mislead that only now the name exists, while the name existed already but was not the official one. What page do you suggest for discussion?--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 15:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-{{dbot}}
 == A good day ==
@@ Line 203: / Line 139: @@
 My compliments for keeping your nerve in a big [[wp:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request%20admin%20assistance%20to%20undo%20controversial%20page%20move|moving]] thing today. Good editor. Here is my '''Written Barnstar'''. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 01:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 :Thank you! I appreciated your comments, too. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
-== End result was a much better article ==
-My comment here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zemuzil,_Duke_of_Pomerania#much_improvement] implies a sincere thanks.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-::I did not enjoy your "edit warring is good for you" approach [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Radeksz&diff=317052695&oldid=317052560] and your repeated OR accusations on talk. That was anything but an academic discussion. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 10:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-:::Well, you did engage in repeated OR on talk. To your credit for the most part very little of that ended up in the article itself. And you're sort of missing the point of that essay or pretending it is something it is not. Like for example you might want to note, since apparently you completely missed it (assuming good faith here; that this wasn't a purposeful omission), that the first line of the essay says ''Ok, I don’t mean that literally – I just wanted a heretical headline''. I'll keep in mind how compliments are received on this talk page.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 10:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-::::Careful Radeksz. You again accuse me of violating policy. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 10:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-:::::Actually I was trying to compliment you. But you somehow managed to turn even that on its head.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 10:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-::::::If you honestly want to reconcile, stop the behavior that led to your last arbitration. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 12:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::Oy, now I believe you are accusing ME of violating policy. Careful.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-:@Radek
-:It had been better and more credible, if you had announced and first discussed your vast changes of some articles the last days, like [[Prussian Confederation]] and [[Jan Bażyński|Johannes von Baysen]] - here you even changed the name - where you largely replaced important information by statements based perhaps (- I assume that most likely - ) on typical not very relieble sources, which were written with the pure intention to push a Polish nationalistic view. (You only stated in the edit summary "this appears to be totally contradicted by some sources")  --[[User:Henrig|Henrig]] ([[User talk:Henrig|talk]]) 09:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-::What are you talking about??? I removed an unsourced claim which was contradicted by an actual source (that's not "important information") which I added to the article. You know, as per Jimbo's "unsourced statements should be challenged and removed".  And don't make personal attacks please or make assumptions about editors' "intentions". This has nothing to with the Zemuzil article either so I don't know why you're choosing to bring it up here. So much for making efforts to build bridges, show good faith and thank users one has had disagreements in the past.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 09:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-:::You've done a lot of changes without announcement and discussion. Short example: You've largely rewritten in the article [[Prussian Confederation]], among other things you've removed external links, a whole section and other background information as not relevant, replaced the statements that Royal Prussia was an autonomous subject of the Polish Crown until 1599 with the term 'province of Poland, with some local rights of autonomy', removed the link to the [[War of the Priests]], which was also evidence for this wide autonomy and so on. Naturally without any remark on the talk page. I admit, that this is not always usual custom. But it would be often helpful. --[[User:Henrig|Henrig]] ([[User talk:Henrig|talk]]) 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-::::There is the B in BRD. I wasn't aware that I needed to make my every edit subject to your approval, announcement and discussion. The stuff I removed was largely irrelevant to the topic (The Prussian Confederation) and consisted mostly of typical nationalistic "Prussia iz German forever!" off-topic irredentist POV pushing, inserted most likely by the same Jimbo-banned anon IP that had to get re-banned by an admin recently.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 10:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-:::::It seems, you mean the changes from 9 Feb. 2009 by an IP, which describes the position of the order. A useful information, when contrasted with the position of the other party (the Polish king). This unsourced information was added by an IP. But this IP is not blocked. I've restored the Aftermath section to the state before the statements of this IP. Other deleted but useful informations in the article should best be restored at the next opportunity. --[[User:Henrig|Henrig]] ([[User talk:Henrig|talk]]) 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-::Hey Henrig, I agree that the move of von Baysen was a bad idea. Radeksz, please start a RM and don't move war. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 10:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-::But while we're on the subject I'm at a total loss as to how you can make this kind of move [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannes_von_Baysen&diff=prev&oldid=379368260] with that kind of edit summary: "Native name and name used in English is Johannes or Hans von Baysen" which is completely unsupported by actual English language sources which use "Jan Bazynski" more often than "Johannes von Baysen" as I've shown at talk without even addressing the issue.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 09:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
-:::I will address your flawed books.google search as soon as you moved it back and start a RM. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd#top|talk]]) 10:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 ==DYK for Veste Landskron==
@@ Line 230: / Line 147: @@
 |text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#18 August 2010|18 August 2010]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Veste Landskron]]''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/Veste_Landskron quick check] )</small> and add it to [[WP:DYKSTATS|DYKSTATS]] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
 }}  [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
-== Request ==
-In the future please avoid inflammatory battleground rhetoric such as you use [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=380345877 here] about editors "going after" or "went after" somebody or something, in cases when editors are participating in discussion. Such use of rhetoric will be taken as incivil in the future.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 20:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)