User talk:Dr. Dan/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

Христосъ Воскресе!

Happy Easter!

Ура! :) --Irpen

Native placenames

Hi Dr Dan, Just wondering what you meant with your comment regarding the word Cracow becoming obsolete? (Maybe I'm a bit slow today, the coffee machine is broken ;-) ) By the way, I agree that my use of Warszawa on my user page may appear a bit inconsistent. However, there is a logic. Let's put it this way - I recall being rather impressed first with the Brittanica atlas when I was growing up, and later with Google maps, in that they give place names according to the local spelling rather than some anglicised version. Incidentally, this is also why I objected to the change to Navahrudak Voivodeship, having the impression that the native version (at that time and location) was the Polish spelling. Deuar 14:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi back. The use of Warszawa on your user page strikes me as being more than a bit inconsistent with your views (if I understand them properly) regarding the Cracow or Wilno issues on English WP. Or maybe not at all inconsistent. Perhaps you and I will eventually fine tune the matter as they relate to the English language. Dr. Dan 23:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Irpen. As an opponent of censorship, I didn't want to involve myself in the recent "mess", personally. But I agree with your action. Again, I will consider the original request from the contributor, even though he has personally insulted me many times, has sought to censor me, and has demanded that I be "punished" for behavior that he deems objectionable to. However the "same" type of behavior from contributors he has supported in their endeavors, is fine with him. But I do again want you to be clear that my motivations were not of a malicious intention, and were not caused by his behavior. P.P. is merely an abbreviation. The picture (which I like), is merely descriptive. I have posted my own image on my user page and I could care less about a similar link to it. I do agree with P.P. that a picture is worth a thousand words, even though that is not an original thought of his. Best. Dr. Dan 01:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Hi, Dan. The following edits: [1], [2] look like WP:POINT to me. Please do not do it again Alex Bakharev 04:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Alex, they may appear as WP:POINT to you, however I do intend to further explain my position on Pilsudski's Lithuanian ethnicity (which he acknowledged on numerous occassions) on the J.P. talk page, and appropriately place them into the article where needed. Perhaps you believe that my edits were in retaliation for the recent work of certain parties at the Jonas Basanavicius article and the remarks made on that article's talk page. That would be incorrect. Whereas these provocations had no basis to be put into the Encyclopedia, and there were no attempts to revert them, or admonish those who included them by anyone with the authority to do so, it would be untrue if I said that these edits did not remind me of some unfinished work on the Pilsudski artcle, and my need to address other reverts and the removal of sourced information due to WP:IDON'TLIKE. But no, my intentions were not to make a point, and when you have time to do so, please take a moment to look at the Basanavicius article, it's edit history, and its talk page. Thanks. Dr. Dan 05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a second opinion abut this "look like WP:POINT", posted RE @ [3] --Termer 05:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Czesc Daneczku. Well, I have no doubt about Jogaila But Pilsudski... just a question - why didn't he leave Poland after 1918 to settle in Lithuania? He had a choice and he chose Poland which tells all. greets Tymek (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, he ended up settling his mother there (in Vilnius), and finally his heart there too (in Vilnius). Maybe you've heard of the expression, "Home is where the heart is". Actually his mother was already settled in Lithuania, and died there. The Lithuanian government was very cooperative with her exhumation. Also please remember his dream was to unite his homeland, Lithuania with Poland, kind of like Hitler wanting to reunite his homeland Austria, with Germany. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Btw, thanks for at least acknowledging Jogaila's heritage. Seems I remember SylwiaS and some others wringing their hands over the Jogaila debate with something like "now they are trying to take our king" (a paraphrase rather than an exact quotation).

You are being talked about

here. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you are unaware of the general restriction on Eastern European topics, you should review the ARBCOM decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction. In short, it says any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. As an editor has expressed concern over your behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Dr. Dan inflaming Eastern European topics. I have reviewed the evidence gathered and reported there and am of the opinion that some of your edits have been uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Per the EE General restriction decision I linked to above, I am leaving this comment as your official notice of the decision. Please take great care to ensure that further edits are no longer uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ioeth, for letting me know about this matter. I regret that I was unaware of the accuations until now. I would have liked to respond to them during the discussion. Perhaps it's just as well that I didn't know about it. I will however take your recommendations to heart. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't much discussion about you, per se. The report at WP:AE degenerated into a discussion about whether or not collecting evidence in regard ARBCOM cases is appropriate, which frankly I think is kinda silly. Anyway, I just found out that there's an actual template that I need to leave on your talk page here so I'm going to do that below. You can pretty much ignore it though, as it basically says what I said above. Thanks for responding, and please let me know if there's anything I can do for you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this procedure not required "defendant" participation and to listen to his argumentation as well? M.K. (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As the ARBCOM case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren has already been decided and closed, these actions fall under Arbitration Enforcement. The details of what steps are to be taken by enforcing administrators can be found under the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction section of said ARBCOM case. In short, all that an administrator needs to see to take further action is a single diff that shows an uncivil, personal attack, or assumption of bad faith edit. Ioeth _{(talk [Special:Contributions/Ioeth|contribs]] friendly)} 13:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The instructions on this page for filing a complaint include "Be advised to notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page." Does this not apply here? Novickas (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It does, and I did. See the messages above and below. Ioeth_{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The instruction, by my reading, applies to the editor filing the complaint, not to the admin applying the sanction. Novickas (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry! You're looking at the WP:AE page while I was more concerned with the General restriction section of the ARBCOM decision. Indeed AE does indicate that the reporter needs to notify the user who is the subject of their report, which did not happen in this case. Dr. Dan was notified, but hours later, and by a different user. Frankly, I don't think this is a big deal, because no punitive action resulted from the report, and I am primarily interested in closing these matters as quickly and quietly as possible when they come to AE. If you want to continue this discussion, I invite you to open a different section, as this one is getting off-course of its original intent. Thanks, all! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• FOR THE RECORD: I was informed of the matter two days after the complaint was started (not several hours later), and after the matter was closed. It's not worth pursuing. I have not compiled a list of grievances or any other LISTS, nor do I intend to do so in the future. That the guidelines of WP:AE were not applied properly, is not surprising either. The activities, edits, and behavior of my "friends" speak for themselves and are documented in their edits to articles and in their remarks on talk pages and edit summaries. That's enough for me. Best Dr. Dan (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your inquiry if you can do anything for me. Yes. Please post the same template at the talk pages of User:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, User: Halibutt, and User:Molobo. It would be very appropriate and fair to do so. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide diffs that show edits that are uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith I will be happy to. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your remark (particularly - If you can provide diffs that show edits that are uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith I will be happy to.), I would like that you evaluated user:Halibutt’s behavior, particularly attacks on established contributors, like revert ultranationalist edit. undoing some of the vandalism caused by Lokyz Sorry, Lokyz, I have no intention to discuss with you as long as you vandalize wikipedia, [4], [5] He was informed to stop accuse established editors of vandalism [6] , but disobeyed, again, and again. Curious enough, that Halibutt after commenting Dan’s “case” in Arbitration enforcement continued his “daily practice” again, again. Oh, should I mentioned that he was already warned over his WP:POINT campaigns by one administrator [7], and another one for 3RR, during these “contributions”? And that is most shameful that these disruption is made mainly on main space. So Ioeth, how you put this continues disruption campaign by single user, who was already warned more then once? M.K. (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, but please file future reports at WP:AE and notify me if you so choose. There's no real reason we should be clogging up Dr. Dan's talk page with these reports. I will look into the user's conduct from here and take whatever action is appropriate. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Like you, Ioeth, I am thankful for the information. I don't feel my talk page is being clogged up by M.K.'s efforts to give you a better perspective of what is going on here. If I was inclined to drop the matter, it was more for a lack of time and insufficient computer skills to link the diffs, but consider me in agreement with those provided by M.K. Now that you have these diffs, are you happily going post the warning as you mentioned? Or would you like more? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD. I notified Dan as soon as I saw this. He is right to say that was two days later. I still notified him, because of what happened to user in the Digwuren affair: not having been well warned about being a party to the case and remedies being proposed against him (that was done by an edit in a chapter headed "a non-courteous notice" that had last been used a month before) and having left the East European scene in disgust for some time, he only knew one arbitrator had already proposed to ban him for a year when I told him. Though I am sure some, if not most of the people that mattered in this instance, had already made up their minds by the time I warned him, the whole argument was not over yet: the chapter heading indicating or claiming that Irpen's and Bakharev's arguments were off-topic was added after my warning.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice Picture

Thank you, vandal, for the nice picture. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Dan. I reverted the anon's edit without waiting for you to change your mind re this picture beautifying your userpage. Someone would have to do it anyway, since fairuse images are not allowed in userspace and bots enforce this rule. --Irpen 09:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And I appreciate your efforts, Irpen. My first encounter with this vandal was yesterday at the talk page of the Polish minority in Lithuania. This kind of immature behavior doesn't phase me in the least. I still would consider the żupan though. Best Dr. Dan (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him for a week in case he returns under the same IP.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope it has a positive effect. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Loan words

(You wrote)
I noticed your efforts at the debate concerning the Duchy of Oswiecim or Auschwitz (unresolved yet). Your remark that Auschwitz is a loan word from German, prompts me to ask you if Kraków is a loan word from Polish? If so, what's the difference? If not, what's the difference? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don’t think so. Kraków is a native name, as oppose to the foreign language names to both, English and the local language, like Auschwitz. --Poeticbent talk 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a native name, as you are calling it, cannot become a loanword? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m not exactly sure what it is that you want and why you’re bringing up Kraków yet again at this point in time. I don’t seem to be enjoying this thread as much as I used to and have my doubts about the impartiality of your motives, so I’m pulling the plug. --Poeticbent talk 07:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What I want is consistency and fairness concerning the use of Kraków and Vilnius on English Wikipedia. As I watch the actions of many editors, I too am enjoying this less and less. I'm sure you think your motives are more impartial than mine, but any time you want to interact regarding the issues, please feel free to contact me. I have to assume good faith, and therefore am not pulling the plug. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC) p.s. I also believe a "native name" can become a loan word too. So, my question, "What's the difference?", unfortunately won't be answered with your input.

The Bathtub Test

During a visit to the mental asylum, a visitor asked the Director how do you determine whether or not a patient should be institutionalized?

"Well," said the Director, "we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup, and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub."

"Oh, I understand," said the visitor. "A normal person would use the the bucket because it's bigger than the spoon or cup."

"No," said the Director, "A normal person would pull the plug. Do you want a bed near the window?"

More Later, Dr. Dan (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Hi, I probably didn't catch the point, what's wrong with my oppose in that survey? There is no evidence that Auschwitz is a well established English name. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 01:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My error, I meant the debate at the survey for Union of Cracow and Vilna's name change. Btw, do you consider Vilnius a well established English name? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I was little bit confused :)) Well, I voted for stay with Union of Kraków and Vilna or Union of Vilna but the request was to move it to Union of Vilnius (1499). So I opposed. But after your note I read something more about it and I found Vilnius is its current name, so I am little bit more confused now. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)