User talk:Jbetak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bratislava

As for your language "corrections", I just remind you that the part of the article you have edited, has already been completely reedited several times by native speakers...Juro 20:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pilsen, Budweis, etc

The interaction with NoPuzzleStranger I had before doesn't give me much hope of rational, fact based investigation of the issue. I do not know how to deal with such type of people. Ask WP:RFC for who recognises which name, what maps and travel brochures contain. Pavel Vozenilek 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Thank you Pavel -- will do. My time was somewhat limited and I wanted to see if NoPuzzleStranger can be persuaded by means of logic. We're not quite finished discussing the motives for his edit, however my feeling is that it's in some way related to the vote ob Danzig. Jbetak 8 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)
It had been suggested that NoPuzzleStranger is sockpuppet [1] of other problematic user(s) previously expelled from Wikipedia. (I was lucky not to meet these users so opinion on this.) If the problems persist than a RfAr may be asked for. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I had very bad discussions with User:NoPuzzleStranger. Discussions seem only to circle with him. Don't waste time. How about a list of Czech city names, with czech names, german names, english equivalents. Than discussions would have a good reference. It is like structuring the discussion and at the same time creating a nice list in WP. This could reduce discussions on names of others czech cities with other editors of his type. What do you think? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 8 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Tobias! I'm not sure if I understand fully what you meant -- is this about the discussion I'm having with NoPuzzleStranger or my solicitation for comments on Talk:České_Budějovice? Please feel free to respond in German, I'm fully bilingual - bis denn! Jbetak 8 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

I stick to german so others can read this as well. But nice to hear you speak it :-). I saw your discussion with NPS on his talk page. It seems you were not very happy with the way of talking. This reminded me on my discussions with him on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming and the reverts and argument circling. He may have some god points but the way he puts it is sometimes annoying. I thought, make it scientific, make a table, would reduce discussion needs and at the same time facts for future user-talks would be made available. At the same time this would mean spending more time on articles (or lists in this case) than on talk pages. Best regards to (sunny?) California. - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 9 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)

[edit] AFN Timeline

Hi. I'm working on the American Forces Network article for the Cleanup taskforce, and I was wondering if you were still interested in doing a timeline for the article. --Kerowyn 06:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NoPuzzleStranger

Hi. I noticed your comments re Sealand and NoPuzzleStranger over on Kwekubo's talk page. Just so you're aware, there are accusations floating around - which in my opinion are pretty much self-evidently true - that NoPuzzleStranger is a sockpuppet of Gzornenplatz, who in turn is a sockpuppet of Wik. Wik was banned by the arbcom about a year ago for vandalism and abuse of Wikipedia community standards, and then Gzornenplatz was banned permanently by Jimbo Wales himself, so if it is in fact the same person, he has no right to be editing anything on Wikipedia at all. I've been having some ongoing issues with NoPuzzleStranger myself in the micronation article as part of some sort of grudge against me - so if you're interested feel free to take a look at it. --Centauri 06:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
He seems to have conflicts with everybody here...Juro 00:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Centauri, servus Juro! I appreciate your feedback and have to apologize - I didn't have much time lately. I looked up some stuff on both Gzornenplatz and Wik. Wik's edits and bias seemed eerily familiar and from my perch I'd support the notion expressed above. I could especially agree with the assessment made in Wik's arbitration: an exceptionally smart and driven individual, who unfortunately seems to suffer from some all-too-frequent bad judgment. Although we did get along fairly well in the end and reached some form of (however painful) consensus on Bratislava, Budweis and Pilsen, NoPuzzleStranger can be percieved as quite disruptive and waste other people's time through edit wars. I took some steps to see if other people felt the same way -- not sure what could/should be done about this... Best wishes, Jbetak 22:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I guess it is mainly the Czechia term NoPuzzleStranger gets enraged about. The best solution about city names would be to ask someone who has access to contemporary English maps or travel catalogues to estimate relative frequency of the names (perhaps on WP:RFC). I do not know about admin interested in Czech towns but current frequency of reverts qualifies for protection (you may add it on WP:RFPP). Pavel Vozenilek 23:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dudtz

Howdy. I wasn't the one who blocked Dudtz – I'm not an administrator – Scott blocked him. Dudtz appears to be a bored teenager. He makes the occasional good-faith edit, but yeah, he likes to troll and vandalize, as well. Cheers, AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for the follow-up! I've cleaned up his last edit in the Bratislava article and will follow up with Scott as well. I agree with your assesment and hope he'll mature a bit soon... Best, Jbetak 22:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lacerte

Hi, I was just wondering if you had any response to my comment at Talk:Lacerte? -- Norvy (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kehlsteinhaus

The version on Kehlsteinhaus is a cut and past job from Berghof (Hitler). I think I was the original author on that paragraph on the Berghof but I can't remember. However the version in the Berghof page is more complete that the one on Kehlsteinhaus and it includes dates and times. There is a reference at the bottom of the page to [2] which includes a similar explanation to that in the text in the first paragraph but I can not remember where the second paragraph came from. I suggest that you compare the information in the article you showed to me and see if it differs from the second paragraph as it includes times. If it does not then you are well away if it does then you will have to look for other sources. Here are two to be going on with:

But I did not do a lot of googling to find them so there may well be more. Good luck Philip Baird Shearer 20:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the hungarian POV. I need you!

[edit] Alexander for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 14:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


See also: HunTomy See Wikipedia:Requests for protection Bonaparte talk & contribs 14:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you my friend. I'll do so. If we are united nobody can stop us! Bonaparte talk & contribs 15:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian anon

We have the same problem with this guy. Can we start an RfC or ask to be blocked for good? -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 20:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Thankx. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 21:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
If you start an RfC against the anon I will support you. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 09:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Microsoft

This message is regarding the page Microsoft. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. -- Please also note, Article space is not a place for discussions, that is what the Talk Pages are forxaosflux T/C 20:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Yes, I do realize that and I fully expect to see it reverted. However, this editor is a newbie and he might not be entirely familiar with Wikipedia procedures. Anyway, just trying to be helpful here. Cheers Jbetak 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
On looking again looks like I mis applied the note template I left you, so it didn't have all the text I inteded for you, should be there now. The Microsoft article has a very active discussion page going with it, available here: Talk:Microsoft. I also reverted apparently ni the middle of some of your other edits (e.g. "Microsoft is one of the most corrupt corporations in the world." that appeared to be very POV. See WP:NPOV for more information on writing articles with a Nuetral point of view. xaosflux T/C 21:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Great -- thanks for fixing the template text. I realize that your are quite busy, but for the record - I was not experimenting. I reverted the very same POV text you mistakenly credited to me earlier today. The anon user who has contributed it then returned with a much improved version which seemed to be a copy & past job.
   Someone else has reverted it w/o giving proper explanation. I put it back in as a comment (note the XML-style comment marks around it: <-- and -->) so that this user has a chance to understand what happened. He seems to be editing from an AOL IP address, there is not much chance that he'd read a message if you or I or someone else left him one. Anyway, hope this is settled, I appreciate your antivandalism work but I believe I might have been around long enough to know a thing or two ;-) Best Jbetak 21:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the dangers af reverts! I've rv'ed somthing before and ended up bringing back sneaky vanadlism, then had to go remove it again, looks like you were cleaning it up and got caught in the crossfire! Microsoft is a heavily edited and vanadlized article, thanks for contributiing positively! xaosflux T/C 21:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Germans

You refuse to use the talk page. assume bad faith, keep reverting other population numbers and don't bother to link the 1990 source. if you use a 2004 document, then use the latest census number as well. Please also remember to log into your account. If you are blocked, don't edit. If you are unable to compromise, please consider leaving altogether.

I've noticed a lot of Wikipedian users were assholes, but this just takes the cake. Talk about really trying to get rid of a fellow editor. I noticed you've been rallying people on User:VMORO's and USER:BONAPARTE's talk pages. Also, although many stubborn users refuse to admit it, finding a consensus does not mean you winning your position, it means finding the best suitable representation that we can all agree on Antidote 06:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, I'd like to challenge you to show me how the 57 million number comes together in the original 1990 US Census [3]. I'm curious to see how well you research your claims. I have fixed the link in the article BTW.

Jbetak 01:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to see WHY you can't find the number - it's rather easy, but since I do want you to see it, I'll guide you through a step by step process:
  • 1) Open link: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cp3/cp-3-2.pdf
  • 2) Find Population Statistics on Chart (1990 on left, 2000 on right)
  • 3) Find Germans
  • 4) Look at 1990 --- 57 million (really 58 curved) ---- exactly what I put
  • 5) Look at 2000 --- 43 million
  • 6) Look at population change --- 15 million in 10 years
  • 7) Think - No mass exodus back to Germany - No low birth rate - No possible adimixture that destroys German identity
  • 8) Conclude that best thing to do in this case is keep 1990 census as the 2000 one does not make sense, resulting from a multitude of circumstances - many influencing surveys (as this is what it was)

Good enough I hope. Also, please find something better to contribute to Wikipedia than investigating my work. thanks. Antidote 06:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I'd really appreciate if you kept the discussion on the respective talk pages instead of dragging them to mine. That way other people can respond as well - if they wish to. I might not have time to return to this for the next couple of days. In the meantime, I suggest that you calm down and think a moment about the way this project works. If you continue to be this confrontational, even more people might find it difficult to work with you -- despite all the good work that you have been contributing. Jbetak 08:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that was the wrong link. I hadn't expected you'd change the original one I had on there. Here is the link I'm talking about: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf Now the revert war on the Germans list can at least end. Also, you claim that I should first discuss something on the talk page before reverting -- you could easily see from investigating my contributions that that has been tried by me NUMEROUS of times - and mass revert wars are the only outcome that has arisen from all those attempts (almost none of which were instigated by me). So please, do not attempt to get involved in these debates that have been going on for quite some time and that you clearly have no background on -- I especially don't appreciate rallies against me on other people's talk pages -- at least be forefront with your threats. Aside from that, I hope we can leave this behind us and continue further contributions - perhaps evne working together on some pages -- as I see you share the same interests as I (also, excuse my bad English - I'm ridiculously tired today and fall back into my choppy English when I get no sleep, hope you understand) Thanks. Antidote 21:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danes

And also apparently wrong on the US number: it's about twice the official census number. It was first changed from

1.4 to 2.5 million by an IP similar to the one you were using before. It was later raised again by you to 3 million without stating any sources at all. Can you explain this? Jbetak 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What, now you're investigating me? Jesus Christ people, chill out. US census numbers are almost always grossly underrepresented, especially for old settlers like Danes, Germans, and Brits - many of whom register as American or not at all due to location. If this doesn't come as obvious to both of you then there's a serious problem here. Doubling the number is being plain prude. I originally thought adding a million was enough (hence the 2.5 million change) but later realized that it was being overly cautious (see census report we quarrel about on Germans page), hence 3 million change. Also, you can stop playing detective now. Antidote 05:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

The only thing I'm doing is preventing from nationalists and page-settlers (like User:VMORO) from tweaking population statistics their way - which happens to be done frequently and many times has been stopped thanks to my instrusion. If you see this as BAD FAITH, then feel free to try to get me banned. Antidote 06:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macromedia

Re: Macromedia--I did jump the gun a little bit, but etrade had already stopped listing MACR as a tradable stock on Saturday, although the NASDAQ website didn't, and internally at Macromedia we had already been notified that the closure was final. MACR is officially listed as an unknown symbol on the NASDAQ website today, so I assume that counts as no longer existing.

--Rictus 16:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to update the page now with the closure news, and remove the old links to the acquisition announcements, since they don't seem historically interesting past the closure. I'm also going to add a little more historical information to the page. Rictus 16:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About Antidote

I don't know about this user's activity in other pages, I can't even say anything about his activities in Bulgarians as the user who opposed me kept him anonymous (very disgraceful) although I urged him several times to reveal his identity. With regard to the article: Antidote (if he's the anonymous user) wants to add a number about the number of Bulgarians in Bulgaria which he has calculated himself, using the estimate of the CIA Factbook for the population of Bulgaria in 2005 and the ethnic distribution data according to the Bulgarian census in 2001. I FIRMLY oppose that:

  • 1) The UN, Eurostat and the Bulgarian national statistics give much different numbers about the population of the country ranging between 7,700,000 and 7,800,000, i.e. almost 300,000 people more than the Factbook. I consider them much more thrustworthy sources than the Factbook but even if we disregard my personal opinion here, what are we supposed to do if there are 5 different estimates - calculate 5 different numbers or what???
  • 2) Using ethnic distribution data from 2001 for unverified estimates for 2005 and making own calculations on the basis of that is NOT acceptable. No one can predict exact population movements and current ethnic distribution. The only source which is valid in this case is the national census and the last nation-wide census was held in 2001. VMORO 10:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Self-calculated they are not. I did not make these estimates - several sources did, and just because User:VMORO does not agree with them is not reason enough to exclude them. Yet. User:VMORO includes statistics from some foreign Bulgarian ministries who's estimates are even MORE farflung. Antidote 19:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on User:Antidote

Hello, I believe this person was responsible for mass voting on Catholic, Jewish and Serbs articles and numerous other disruptions including arbitrarily changing population numbers and removing people from lists dating back to March, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote/Contribution_table and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote/User_comments. I would appreciate if you could endorse the request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary, Regards, Arniep 15:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC signature

I would appreciate a basis for your support of the dispute. We have managed to conclude our dispute together civily, why do you wish to bring it up again? Antidote 20:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think we have settled the dispute - I have merely stopped reverting your edits since I was busy this week and felt that I don't need to add to your aggravation.
I was hoping to get back to this, but frankly I was really dreading it. Unfortunately, this has to mostly to do with the behavior you have exhibited last weekend and in the week preceding it. I was hoping that you have rested and calmed down. Unfortunately, the first I saw when I logged in today was an RfC notification. Again, I do not see any reason to be confrontational. My hope is that this will give a reason to reflect how your behavior is affecting other editors.
P.S. I might not be online for the rest of the day, please keep it in mind if you are expecting a prompt answer. Jbetak 20:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
What users do not get in edit wars with others? It is a common Wikipedian practice and it breeds improvals in the long run. So because I may have offended you, you are getting involved in something you have limited knowledge of? Hardly seems logical. My Germans edit has nothing wrong with it - and it seems to me that that was our dispute - so what else do you want to dig up against me? Put it this way, if there was an RFC on you - I'd comment on your good edits and questioning of facts - regardless of the fact that you may have ticked me off. Antidote 22:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I'm glad that we agree on one thing - how Wikipedia works. However, content disputes and personal disputes are different things. I realize that it's difficult to stay calm when other editors are uncivil and you see your edits ignored or misinterpreted. Forgive me for saying so, but you did not strike me as someone particularly open to consensus, in fact I found your edit summaries and comments downright inflammatory. If this is how you hope to asses your credibility and find common ground, then good luck with it.
As a side note: my comments to you were prompted by content disputes I had with User:Wik. A prolific editor who just refused to get a along. Pardon me for jumping to conclusions, but seeing that there is an RfC on you a week after I have voiced these concerns to you shows that you really should think about what triggered it. I think being less antagonistic is a good way to start.
I was asked to participate in the RfC and I did. The way you conducted the content dispute in the Germans article was cited in the RfC as an example, which I have certified. You also seem to have misinterpreted my actions and continue to do so. If you think and RfC on me is warranted, I'd welcome it as an opportunity to become a more effective editor. Jbetak 01:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

From the looks of it, you simply did not like some edits I made and in the process misinterpreted many of my explanations for them. This is not a content dispute any longer. It is indeed now a personal dispute that you have made. If it were not a personal dispute, you would have taken up my offer to perhaps work together on similar interest article and not started up bad impressions again on the RFC. The RFC was put up by User:Arniep who's had a long spite against me and a few other editors I regurlarly work with because we did not wish to keep a few lists he made (or worked on or whatever). So, now, a week or so later, he has diggen up as many edit wars as he can possibly dig up on me and the other users and used them as an example of my and their bad editor skills - probably in some form of revenge (he's done something similar to this by nominating many pages for deletion as a WP:POINT after getting upset that people were deleting his lists). Afterwards he spammed all the users I have ever disagreed with content wise and asked them to sign the RFC (ofcourse some of them did, perhaps being spiteful) (then again, some didn't, and those I commend for seeing the difference between a content dispute and a personal dispute). Now I see that you may just be one of those spiteful editors - or at least it seems that way.

Finally, the fact of the matter is, you act quite patronizing to me on your responses. Somehow you make yourself appear more wise and knowledgeable, teaching me lessons on how to get along and the like. This, obviously, I do not appreciate. Oh and lastly, I never said an RFC was warranted on you (I don't know where you got that) I was just giving an example of how I don't let content disputes manifest themselves into personal disputes. Hopefully, you will rethink which is better - a friendly Wikipedian collaborator? Or a spited one? Antidote 05:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


Offtopic: Are you a Slovak? Antidote 05:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry for butting in, but the WP:POINT I did although stupid was in direct response to this User:Antidote's multiple voting on afd for which I have fully apologized, and, he referred to them as "my lists" which is pretty interesting since I have hardly ever even touched any lists (from memory, I added a musician to list of Australians), just thought I'd clear that up. Thanks Arniep 17:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right - they were not "your lists" - but I was using that word in a possessive form since you implied several times that you take them personally. Anyway, I appreciate that you apologized for that and I don't like it when I need to use it against you but seeing as you have used my "suspected" sock-meat-whatever puppetry against me so many times already and you have purposely diggen up edit wars on me to discredit my ability as an editor (all for what I see it as - revenge) makes me see it as a notable addition. If the sock-meat-whatever-puppetry claims were true I'd already be apologizing for them. Antidote 21:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote and User:Zordrac/Poetlister

I note that you are involved in the above RfC. Please see my sub page for evidence of the entirety of the dispute and related issues. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted -- thanks! Jbetak 04:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Antidote and 3RR block violations

Hi, as admin Izehar informed me, block violations should be reported on WP:AN/I.

I did what I could - I'm for promoting civility. On a related note: is there a way in which the edit war on the List of Ukrainians could stop? Have you considered applying for article protection? Jbetak 04:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Please see the rationale and refrain from targetting me any further because of the bad history we had together. Try to understand the revert war I am in if you choose to mention them too. Appreciate it. I believe I have found a compromise on the list. Article protection was attempted before (you can see the talk page) where no discussions were made at that time. Antidote 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Dear Jbetak, we worked together some time ago, I would like to propose you as admin. Please take this as my consideration to your efforts. -- Bonaparte talk 07:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bonaparte -- I appreciate your sentiment, but I'm afraid my edit count is not up to snuff yet. And given the speed I'm going at, I can only hope that you'll remember me when you get your adminship ;-) Jbetak 07:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry my friend, Wikipedia needs people like you :) I will be there when you think you're ready! -- Bonaparte talk 08:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Romanians

Hi there Jbetak. I am still travelling on holidays, but managed to briefly drop in to survey the latest wreckage surrounding the interminable debate on the numbers of Romanians. It is most discouraging to see potentially valuable contributors such as User:MBE feeling they have to walk away from the project after some most unpleasant barrages of invective from some quarters. It's a great pity, since MBE was actually a professional in this area, and one who had access to some valuable information not otherwise easily obtainable. In answer to your question, I myself have no particular qualifications in this area or on the US2000 census in general, however I have made an effort to become acquainted with the sources. When I am fully back on deck in a week or so, I will continue to argue the case for accurately reflecting what the sources actually say, and also to ensure that we simply explain to the reader (as in this particular case) that precision is just not possible and any estimate needs to be treated with some caution. If there's any particular question re the US Census, I will do my best to answer, but probably not until my return. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 00:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

CJLL, the problem is quite simple. There are between 8-10,000,000 romanians abroad. That's all. I have brought many sources and that's it. Who is intereseted can go and search for others. Bonaparte talk 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

Could you PLEASE drop some words on the anons talk page User:HunTomy. He has reverted all the disputed articles we have been discussing here for weeks and he seem to think that I am the only one who is in dispute with him here (based on his impertinent remarks, in which always calls me "kid" or similar things). Juro 23:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Juro -- thanks for your note. I've left him a conciliatory message, although it's doubtful that he will read it, as he has been editing anonymously in recent days and weeks.
I'm sorry for all your trouble, these edit wars are really useless, plus his edits are clearly written from the Hungarian POV. For better or worse, I believe that since Wikipedia is getting increasingly popular, this sort of disruption will be more frequent. Anyway, have great day -- Jbetak 08:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
We have an admin so don't worry. Just let me know about it please. Bonaparte talk 17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happiness

Hi, just wondering if you could give me some feedback re my recent edits for happiness which you reverted. In my mind they were all in good faith (not link spam), but I am new to wikipedia so keen to know how to improve. Sincerely, Jtneill - Talk 23:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Oops - my apologies. I have followed the trail User:83.131.82.206 left behind and overlooked your recent edits. Obviously, you have taken care of that spam link already - so kudos and a happy New Year to you. Best Jbetak 23:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Phew! Thanks, appreciate it....in the process I came across and started exploring your Flickr page and have added you as a contact! ;) Kind regards from Australia, Jtneill - Talk 01:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks.

Thanks for the support, but I think I'll wait a little before taking any action. It looks like Khoikhoi is in trouble with quite a lot of people as he has been in the past. The situation may sort itself out, perhaps it's best if we wait to see what happens. Thanks again. Jombo 11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I proposed Juro as admin. What's your opinion? Bonaparte talk 19:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
If you mean me -- I have already voted in support. Has he accepted yet - is he around right now? Jbetak 19:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Geller

No problem! -Rekleov 16:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] borders of slovakia

Karte der Slowakei did you seen ever a map of slovakia?--Mt7 19:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have - thank you. I'd appreciate if you laid off that confrontational tone, we both have better things to do. Please let me know, when you are ready to discuss this calmly. Jbetak 19:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
you argument at page of slovakia is now better, I discuss not more, but please do not delete my arguments. It borders ... and Austria only in the west. South is you dre3am--Mt7 19:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I agree -- the geographic center of Slovakia is around Banska Stiavnica. If you draw a line to the west, you will hit a three-country corner of Slovakia, Czech Republic and Austria, hence the slight distinction between southwest and northwest. I'm not deleting your "evidence", and I'm familiar with the map of Slovakia. It's just I consider it poor manners to cut&paste a large image from an article onto someone's talk page.
Anyway, your contribution is appreciated, even though it resulted in a minor content dispute. I have reverted you because I believe the consensus version is supported by a number of reputable editors and I don't see how your edit is making it more accurate. Let me know if you wish to discuss this further. Jbetak 19:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
sorry, you argument is now again better, but nowhere near enough, the fact is: Slovakia has border only in west with Austria (from Wikipedia Austria: It borders Slovakia to the east.), from Banska Stiavnica is Austria only : GO WEST and wikipedia is encyclodepia, please be exact, border is only to Bratislava, if it would be Gabcikovo OK, please, do not speake about personal attack, it is only a bagatelle ... --Mt7 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
and about Poland - borders Ukraine and Belarus to the east - your argument this helps to distinguish it better is not o good one --Mt7 20:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course this is a minor edit and in the great scope of things, real factual errors and other stylistic and linguistic issues most likely an immaterial one.
Yet, I see you making remarks such as "have you seen a map of Slovaia", "open your eyes", "in your dream" and use bolded and capitalized text. You seem to compelled to mess around the map of Slovakia you on my talk page. Why is that? Do you think that am I not reasonable? That I am going to hide or deliberately misinterpret something?
Before I reverted you, I checked your profile and contribution history. The change did not fit the text at hand, since it listed Czech Republic in the northwest and this would have to change as well in order to make that paragraph work better.
Anyway, I appreciate you making me aware of the the other articles and I have to say that the best change we could do it to say that Slovakis borders the Czech Republic and Austria in the west, Poland in the north, Ukraine in the east and Hungary in the south.
This whole discussion would have made much more sense on Talk:Slovakia, so other editors (although there are unfortunately not that many) could benefit from it. Jbetak 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks you. --Mt7 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing -- would you like to make the change or should I? Best Jbetak 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles of articles on peoples

Hi, I've noticed that you have taken it upon yourself to move all ethnic articles to follow the pattern XXX people ...

Thanks for your concern, Jbetak; please see here and here for my comments. I believe more peoples' names fit an "XXX people" template, so ultimately there should be more consistency if it is used. However, if this is not the case or the consensus of those concerned is not to favor this pattern, so be it. Best wishes, David Kernow 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Slovakia

Thanks for your encouraging comments. The topic interests me, and I trust I have interpreted the text appropriately. -- Pedant17 03:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the follow-up on Berchtesgaden

You are right about the Berchtesgadener Hof. I'm sorry to hear that it is going to be torn down. It was quite a nice old building. Ksnow 15:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Ksnow

[edit] Hitler

Please read the extensive debates on the Talk page and review the versions prior to your edit, before turning up your nose at a minor and totally impersonal revert. -- Simonides 05:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magyarization

Hi! Thanks for your recent edits on Magyarization. It was a terrible page, in terms of content, style and spelling, now it looks a lot better!--Tamas 10:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler

There is no content dispute. Please take note of the fact that Str1977 admitted on his talk page [4] : "Karl, the info you inserted into Hitler was word for word accurate." - When they delete the entire text, that violates Wikipedia policy and doing it after being warned leaves me with no choice but to ask the Arbitration Committee to reaffirm their existing ruling on this exact same type of issue. Karl Schalike 17:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jbetak,

yesterday Karl did insert a fact detail into Adolf Hitler to insinuate that Hitler was a homosexual and immediately afterwards he put Hitler into a homosexual catgory. Both was reverted, the category by Michael Dorosh, the insinuation by me.

The problem isn't that the details he posted were inaccurate (Hitler and Kubizek sharing one bed), but they were used to insinuate something (and that's what my comment linked above was trying to say).

Today Karl returned, reinserted not only his previous edits but even a lengthy section titled "Hitler's sexuality", which he saw fit to place at the beginning of the article. I have moved this addition to the talk page for discussion, and removed it a second time from the article. I did not even revert it a 3rd time, let alone breaking 3RR.

Karl has also included this into various other articles, and has even before I opposed him today, called me a homophobe (an accusation he reiterates here) and threatened me with ArbCom.

I am posting this just so that you may hear the other side of the story too.

Str1977 18:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Str1977's account of this and by the way, thanks for stepping in over there. Wyss 03:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni33

Hi; I saw your comment on the checkuser page. There's also some discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Advice requested from experienced admins, if you want to chime in there. Tom Harrison Talk 21:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Friends of the Slavist

Please have a look at wikibooks:False Friends of the Slavist. With your language skills, you can help us very much there, though there is not too much to be done. See also wikibooks:Talk:False Friends of the Slavist for details on what is still needed. Thanks in advance! --Daniel Bunčić 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006
Project news
From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals
  • Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy e 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian people#History

Could you take a look at the first sentence in this section? It claims that Persians are descendants of some "Aryan tribes" migrating from Central Asia. Sounds like outdated racial theories to me. The same source (Britannica) says Persians are of mixed ancentry, but when I try to add this in people remove it. I don't think this is consistent with WP:NPOV. Could you take a look at this and leave a comment? Thanks, AucamanTalk 06:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday, Jbetak, from the Wikipedia Birthday Commitee!!! Have a great day!

Mr. Turcottetalk 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 00:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Munich

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? Kingjeff 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Translation

Hello! A while ago you signed up to help translate articles from other Wikipedias at Wikipedia:Translators available.

This page has since become obsolete and has been replaced by two userbox templates.

If you are still interested in translating, you may sign up again by using one of the following userboxes on your userpage (while changing, of course, the codes according to the languages you speak):

   {{Translator|es|Spanish}} 
   {{Proofreader|fr|French}}

We hope to see you soon on Wikipedia:Translation!

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Pohlad na mesto.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pohlad na mesto.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)