User talk:Mareklug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old talk: User talk:Mareklug/Archive 1

---

I believe it is the section "Content disputes" and the Arbitration Committee's probation imposed on Kosovo-related articles, administered as part of the Macedonia/Balkan region probation. The recent edit revision history of the article I am requesting full page protection for, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, extends the editorial conflicts addressed on talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Instead of blocking the page, you could block User:Tocino for deliberately introducing false information (e.g., he put in that 32 countries have officially rejected the independence of Kosovo while sourcing this claim and list of countries ostensibly with references, which on examination, reveal the claim to be false and the list of not-recognizing countries, padded with countries which took no such position -- for example, Morocco, Portugal, India have not acted officially to deny recognition; for Morocco, we don't even have any information as to its reaction, other than a press account labeling Morocco as "concerned"). Or, your could warn User:Tocino for repeated removal of neutral, inclusive of the opposing viewpoints map display, in favor of retaining only one of the maps. That contribution expressly censors the competing POV and removes the undisputed who-recognized-officially-only green/gray map used in the main article. But blocking User:Tocino would impair the ongoing RFC about the Wikipedia name use for Prishtina, the capital of Kosovo. Merely warning, would keep the user editing, and there is a chance, that warned, he might come around to consensus, or at least, give up introducing false information and removing NPOV map documentation, since he has already recently been blocked for 24-hours for edit warring on this topic and acknowledged having been placed on probation. Alternatively, you could block from edits both him and me, but that would be entirely unfair to me, as I am working to keep the article, and in fact all of Wikipedia, factual and correctly sourced, free of POV, and I have not been disruptive. My edit history shows that my edits range all over the map. Here, by augmenting Serbian reaction section and introducing the Serbia's reaction article, I represented the Serbian viewpoint. I also took my map improvements to the talk page, and justified them there. And, once again, since you wrote back to me, User:Tocino reverted my corrections to his claims, restoring the 32 opposing countries texts, and reintroduced the one POV only map situation. User:Tocino described my earlier revert as vandalizm his edit summary. --Mareklug ^talk 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is too much for me to follow. Please use WP:RFPP, or if people have broken the 3RR, use WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Re. Please advise. 2 RE: Adoption_and_terms_of_the_declaration_of_independence 3 Call to Arms 4 2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence 5 Barnstar 6 Pristina 7 May 2008 8 Re. please advise 9 Threats 10 Thank you for the correction 11 Re. Question -- ArbComm probation violated? 12 Regina Spektor 13 Ethnicity 14 please 15 Thanks 16 edit undone 17 Repeated incivility and failure to assume good faith 18 wikicommons 19 Barnstar

[edit] Re. Please advise.

Hello Mareklug. Well, I believe that your request at WP:RFPP might have been declined due to the fact that the edit war was just starting and there was thus insufficient information of a full scale edit war that would have surely resulted in full protection to the article (by the way, that's how we call it: we don't "block" articles, we "protect" them). If the edit war continues, then do relist your request at WP:RFPP. It will likely to be accepted. I also have to agree that you might have failed to control yourself sometimes, when in the face of your opponent Tocino. Edit warring is never a good choice, as it only worsens a dispute and can indeed grant blocks to both of you (although I think that a topic ban would be quite an unlikely/draconian measure, you're not causing that much trouble as far as I see). My suggestion is, when Tocino (or any other user) makes an edit that you strongly disagree with, refrain from reverting right away and instead, summon the other party to the talk page. Then two things may happen: either he joins the discussion so you can both argue your points of view, or he doesn't join the discussion and provides you with a good reason for requesting an administrator's intervention against his unilateral actions. I hope this helps. Best regards, Húsönd 02:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Adoption_and_terms_of_the_declaration_of_independence

Hello Mareklug, By now you know that I have been banned from the talk pages of the Kosovo related articles. I was reading the Kosovo declaration article and realized that it states that Kosovos UDI was signed by 109 PM and rejected by minorities and serbs. This, however is not true since Kosovos assembly has 120 seats out of which 20 are reserved for minorities. Out of this 20, 10 for the serbs and 10 for the others. Other minorities did sign the declaration and that is evident from the transcript of the meeting. It is in Albanian, but all the way in the end one can read who signed and who was not present. Two names come to my mind. Mahir Yagcilar from one of the Turkish parties and Zylfi Merxha from one of the Roma parties, he represents other minorities as well in the G7+ parliamentary group. Obviously there are seven other minority representatives that signed and maybe someone who knows better the political scene could help out. Here is the transcript in PDF and also the link to the list with parties in Kosovo. http://www.assembly-kosova.org/common/docs/proc/trans_s_2008_02_17_al.pdf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Kosovo. Thanks you. I really appreciate your work here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Adoption_and_terms_of_the_declaration_of_independence Jawohl (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jawohl. I hope your topic ban will be shortened, which Husond mentioned as a possibility, albeit left up to the imposing admin. As for the Albanian transcript, the annotation "Mungon!" means absent, and "Nuk është prezent!" means is not present; can't say why both phrases are used interchangably, for a total of 11. Of the 11, only one has a non-obviously Serbian patronymic/last name: "Ftoj deputetin e Kuvendit të Kosovës, Mursel Halili. Mungon!". Perhaps this representative also represented the Serbian minority? For now, I will assume the correctness of the Chicago Tribune account, and I will make the necessary factual change in 2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Adoption and terms of the declaration of independence, sourcing it to the above transcript and to the Chicago Tribune source I used when identifying the absent 11 as representing the Serbian minority in the lead for International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. The presently used source in 2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Adoption and terms of the declaration of independence that is used with the false statement you are writing about is sourced to a Finnish-language source, which makes it rather opaque as verifiability goes. Perhaps one of the Albanian-fluent editors can cast full light on this issue, identifying all minority parliamentarians who signed, by what minority they were elected to represent. --Mareklug ^talk 10:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what Mursim Halili is. He could be Gorani or was simply not able to attend for whatever reason. From what I understood so far, the 100 + 20 system, was put in place in order to motivate minorities to take part in the parliamentary life. If serbs would vote directly they would get additional 10 seats which are reserved for them. This "positive discrimination" should be the case also for the other minorities and is supposed to function until everyone participates in the institutions, meaning seats would be given per vote. As for the other minorities, they have all endorsed the declaration, except for the Gorani, which seem to be split (and maybe serb speaking Roma?). I have seen footage of Goranis celebrating the UDI on youtube but that is no evidence. One thing is clear. The other minorities have been used by both sides as a ball in this whole issue. The law in force does require that certain Ministries are run by certain minorities and this has been the case until today. There are Turkish, Bosniak and Serb Ministers or vice-ministers, who pursue their tasks. Of course the serb ministers officially do not cooperate and since the UDI, reports regarding their cooperation are rather conflicting.

As for the ban, I just wrote to Husond, that I am not interested to request a lift of my ban, since here, some individuals think that fighting others POV contributes more then offering additional sources. Good luck. Jawohl (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2008

(UTC)

[edit] Call to Arms

This is ridiculous, when I was voting to merge the article for Kosova I was severely tricked. They turned Rep of Kosova into a region, and mainly about Serbian history. When you go to Hashim Thaçi page you read about how he is the PM of Kosovo (which leads to the territory) that page should lead to his government in Rep. of Kosova. We need to have more than one article in which Kosova or Kosovo need to lead to Kosovo (disambigius) and the reader can pick which article he/she wishes to read. I, want to make a Rep of Kosova article, WP is acting as if Rep. of Kosova doesn't exist --- this is silly, it does, it's recognized, and it's currently in power. I am calling on a few people to help me draft this, I am willing to spend time writing this, and I wish your help.

Also, do you speak Shqip? I was surprised when I read the "mungon" you wrote above --- bravo my friend, bravo, Shumë Bukurë!

Thank You Ari

Kosova2008 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Hello. I have moved some of the countries who were listed under will not recognize and have trimmed the list down to 27 because Turkmenistan hasn't made a response that we know of... Iraq, Mali, Morocco, and Portugal have all expressed concern or have wished for further negotiations so I moved them to the expressed concern category. I have also removed Burkina Faso, Malta, and Thailand from countries which have expressed concern or wish for further negotiations. All of these moves are in accordance with the stated positions of the respective countries which are documented on the international reaction article.

Those two maps which were recently added had caused a huge break in the article... there is only room for one map without disrupting the flow of the article. Also having two maps of the same kind is confusing to the reader. --Tocino 23:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I, Gimme danger hereby award you this the Special Barnstar for your exceptionally witty mathematical joke on Talk:Polyandry. You made this user's morning. Gimme danger (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pristina

Please argue your view in the talk page and do not use edits on the Kosovo article to argue your ideas. Please discuss changes in the article PRIOR to making those changes. It's very appreciated. Thank you. Beam 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't justify your OR edit summaries by asking me to discuss what has been continually discussed and is being discussed on the talk page. In case you have not noticed, the talk page contains a section directing attention to the outstanding RfC on the spellings of Pristina in the Wikipedia. It is full of evidence. And I am not about to replicate it verbatim in yet another section. I have instituted a NPOV method of representing all three English spellings jointly, at the same time linking directly to articles. The same in the case of Kosovska Mitrovica, the Serbian name which Albanians know as Mitrovica and on Wikipedia it lives at Mitrovica, Kosovo. There are other proximate towns in Serbia known as Mitrovica, which in those cases necessitates full diambiguation which just happens to be synonymous with the Serbian name.

I am not pushing any point of view, but fixing a faulty "compromise". Institutions, as I noted in the comment in code, use all three spellings, and per Wikipedia policy cited by admin User:ChrisO, who authored the naming conventions for Kosovo and Macedonia and others, we must call institutions by the names they theymselves use. See his comments on the talk page of University of Priština, which is another even more intractable case of needing to use all three spellings of the city in the English language. So please don't justify your edits and reverts with a) OR, b) bylaws recently elected by one or two editors on a talk page. I am being bold yet inclusive and NPOV in my edits in this matter, and the case is actively being discussed and has been on several talk pages. --Mareklug ^talk 18:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. Sorry man, the consensus is Pristina is correct, I have no clue what you're talking about. GO start a new section on the Kosovo talk page. But don't make edits without doing so. It's appreciated! Beam 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And you do realize that this is an English Wiki, right? That's why it's Pristina. It's the English spelling. Ok? Beam 18:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't condescend. Read the article on the city itself. Right of the bat, we define 3 equivalent English spellings, without passing judgment on which one to use. The Englishness of "Prishtina" is shown in the Request for Comments to be dating to at least 1905 in Encyclopedia Britannica. University pages of major American universities such as Princeton, Harvard, University of Iowa, Dartmouth College etc. all refer to Prishtina and University of Prishtina. The Municipality of Prishtina represents itself as such on its English language official web page. The official web pages of the airport, the Albanian university and of the President's Office, Prime Minister's Office and the Government Portal of Kosovo all in unison use the spelling "Prishtina'. So please don't invent that "Pristina" is the only English language spelling. And instead of appreciating or having no clue (your words), please read what is being discussed and the erudite evidence cited on the very talk page to which lengthening you keep calling me to pointlessly do. As I already told you, I have discussed these edits on various talk pages. --Mareklug ^talk 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What section on the Kosovo Talk Page are you talking about? Please keep your responses here as well, instead of going back and forth to my talk page.

If you show me what you're talking about, on the Kosovo Talk Page, I won't revert your edits. I'll give you a few minutes to do so. Good luck! Beam 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and revert your changes. If you come up with proof of a consensus on the Kosovo Talk Page, than you can reinstate them. Until then, please stop editing the Kosovo article. Thanks!! Beam 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are being unreasonable. You did not even give me the few minutes you yourself offered one sentence above. The difference between your signature times is all of FOUR MINUTES. What is your hurry? You're making this into a "let's give 'em a fair trial and then hang 'em" skit. And why aren't you not reacting to my considered, informative, meritorious presentation of evidence contrary to your assertion? And there is no consensus on this matter!

The Talk:Kosovo page has 19 archives already as of today, and there is no easy way to search through them all, in order to document to you "hurryupquickly", where on that talk page the (now archived) section is lodged, where the RfC announcement about how to spell Pristina was lodged, transferring the locus of discussion away from the Kosovo talk page by Wikipedia rule. But you can go to this relevant page, and see the section at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles)#RfC_on_the_Prishtina.2FPristina.2FPri.C5.A1tina_naming_dispute This announcement was also posted to Talk:Kosovo at the time. And this discussion is ongoing. So please aquaint yourself with it as well as the talk page for the city itself. I will restore my edits, and please don't you tell me what I may edit or not on Wikipedia, because that borders on ridiculous and completely unreasonable, not to mention, unfriendly. Your massive revert undid a lot of small improvements. So please spare us your heavy hand, esp. since you are losing NPOV improvements. Thank you. --Mareklug ^talk 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're very confrontational! We have had a consensus on the Kosovo article to use Pristina. I'm sorry but if you don't want your "small improvements" reverted, than don't change anything regarding Pristina. I'll go along with WP:ASG and say you're trying to do good, but it's just not working. Start a new section on the Kosovo talk page or something. Until you do, Pristina is the accepted way to note Pristina in the Kosovo article. Good luck buddy! Beam 19:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And honestly, I don't have that much of a view on it. I think Pristina is the obvious way English speakers spell the name. But it won't hurt the article to have it all three ways in parentheses. So please, do start a new section in the Talk Page. I'd like to open the discussion again anyway, as we've had several edits to the "Pristina" parts of the article recently. Good luck! Beam 19:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Talk:Kosovo#Pristina.2FPrishtina.2FPri.C5.A1tina - I have started a talk page section on this very subject, so go make your opinion heard! Beam 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Kosovo. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. please advise

Hello Mareklug. I couldn't reply earlier but I see that the edit request regarding Ukraine is being discussed at the talk page under a modified form, so far with no opposition. It's probably better to wait until tomorrow to see if there's consensus to implement it. If no significant opposition arises, I'll proceed. Regards, Húsönd 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On Ukraine, you said to add some dates to it ect. Could you please do that as im struggling? thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Threats

Hi! I need to complain about the threats and inexplicable arch-hostile behaviour of user LUCPOL towards me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.106.128.119

He wrote it in Polish, but I do not know why I should be bullied without any reason here... How can I officially reprot this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.128.119 (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for writing to me about this. User:Piotrus is an experienced, Polish-speaking English Wikipedia administrator, and has worked extensively in the past with User:LUCPOL, and hails from Katowice, so he should be well acquainted with Silesia-related disputes and can assess the merits of disputes involving the region. I have no reason to think him biased in any way. Please try to enlist his assistance. Good luck, and whatever comments are made and whatever happens, just try to just edit the Wikipedia to your best ability, striving to maintain, improve and introduce neutral, scholarly content. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 11:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ja też mu życzę wielu "neutralnych" edycji. Jednak na razie jest to IP bez żadnego merytorycznego wkładu w Wikipedię, jedynie co wprowadza to POV, trolling, ataki osobiste, spam i... zamieszanie. Odpisałem mu (tym razem grzeczniej) w dyskusji a co tak naprawdę chodzi. LUCPOL (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the correction

Hi Mareklug. I have just noticed your edit to my user page. Thank you for correcting the text :-)
Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on your proposal -with a simple "go ahead"- was one of the first edits I did today. I also took the liberty of adding your signature to your comments: it seems that you had signed with five tildes ~~~~~ instead of the standard four ones ~~~~, a mistake we all do from time to time (cf. How to sign your posts :-). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Question -- ArbComm probation violated?

Hello Mareklug. I don't think Tocino is breaking the probation in that diff, he's just going a bit off topic. You could remind him that Wikipedia is not a forum, but as far as I can see it, that particular diff doesn't represent any big concern requiring sanctions. Thank you for contacting me. Regards, Húsönd 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. The diff you provided does display a completely unacceptable behavior. I've decided not to ban Tocino right away, but instead give a firm/last warning. Hopefully this will not happen again. Please report any further instances of incivility from this (or any other) user. Regards, Húsönd 03:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regina Spektor

Hi, your rationale doesn't address the reasoning for removal. There is still no demonstration of significance or context for the inclusion of her heritage in the lead. In effect, something that denotes relevance. For example, Colin Powell's bio' provides explicit context for inclusion of African-American in the lead. Please see WP:NAMES which provides a sparse indication of my position (someone should really expand that). References to her heritage weren't removed and remained prominent in the main body but that doesn't constitute an assertion of significance for the lead. There is no explanation for its prominence (e.g. significance to her music, to her notability). Regards, SoLando (Talk) 10:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The NAMES redirect is just a conveniant (lazy) redirect for me ;-). Also, apologies for the repetition in directing you to that page; I originally intended to initiate a discussion on the article's talk page but decided against that. I do respect your position and agree, to an extent, but what is stated in the main body of text is of no consequence if the initial mention of her heritage in the lead doesn't demonstrate significance to the subject. Asserting that the main body demonstrates relevance doesn't validate the current lead; it's presently devoid of any assertion of significance. Without context, some readers will likely question the prominence before scrolling down the page to learn more: "So what? What's the importance?". Leads should be representative of an article and contain only information that is demonstratively relevant to the subject and properly contextualised, especially when it involves religion and ethnicity.

I agree an RFC would be disproportionate. I believe this can be easily resolved. There are essentially two options: demonstrate significance, á la Colin Powell, with sourced exposition on the relevance of the religion and ethnicity to the subject (e.g. influence on music, notability) or remove it from the lead and retain references to her heritage in the early life section and elsewhere in the article. I'm not that familiar with this musician but I have a further example: Issy Smith. The article's lead contextualises his religion/ethnicity quite explicitly, making relevance to the lead and subject indisputable.

These guidelines have been formulated by consensus and therefore are representative of the Wikipedia community, its conventions, standards, and "preferences" (even if a majority of the community did not participate in discussion or agrees with them). Common sense from a Wikipedia perspective would dictate the question: how does the current lead enhance the article? Why should it remain without context using a rationale seemingly irrelevant to the current state of the lead? It has become a convention to omit a subject's ethnicity and religion from the lead/intro' when significance is not apparent in the lead or/and when it is unsourced, especially for articles within the scope of BLP. If the importance of her religion/ethnicity is unequivocal, its relevance to the lead should be stated and sourced. The introduction's current formulation is totally unacceptable by the aforementioned reasoning. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 16:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

Russian Jewish is an ethnicity, one that is universally acknowledged and self-identified by many individuals, including Regina Spektor. Please take a look at any source or interview about this singer. Have you? Badagnani (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to be leaving a message on my talk page implying that her Jewishness should be left out of the lead, but in fact "Russian Jewish" is an ethnicity that I think should clearly be included. Right now, however, the wording is a bit cumbersome ("Soviet Union-born Jewish Russian American"). Badagnani (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No cursing. I won't discuss with you further. Badagnani (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Last time i checked, been Russian Jewish meant that you were a Russian National and you followed the religion of Judaism, not an ethnicity. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The disucussion of this issue on my talk page is out of place, as User:Badagnani raised it for no rational reason.

It was another user (see section immediately above) who wants Regina Spektor's ethnicity as described in her article lead -- contextualized and sourced, in the lead, that's all. But, Badagnani was apparently unable to grasp that, and wrote instead on my talk page, as if it was I who raised any objections in the first place, whereas I merely attempted to communicate to him on his talk page the need to make repairs in that lead, and to seek his help in this contextualizing and sourcing. Debating what is Russian Jewishness here is completely unnecessary and uncalled for. --Mareklug ^talk 22:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] please

Please comment on the content and not on the contributor. There are less confrontational and insulting and much more civil ways to find to say these things, and I encourage you to find them.

Thanks - Revolving Bugbear 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Revolving Bugbear, thank you for the note concenring my 3 most recent talk page entries in the matter of Sierra Leone recognizing Kosovo being missourced and the demands being made that Wikipedia act on these inferior sources. I admit the tone was harsh, and I will refrain to the best of my ability from doing it again.

However, I think I was commenting on the edits and not the editor, albeit disparragingly. Both editors were demanding that we act on uncertain news (one even wrote "I want Sierra Leone in the article"). I have been accused of being a pro-Kosovo editor, and in this instance I was expressly finding fault in pro-Kosovo demands, in Ian's case, an editor who is editing this article intensively and if should know better. His claim that he could not identify by looking whether the sources were all in Albanian was disingeneous, and, too, influenced my say. But I will refrain in the future. Best wishes, --Mareklug talk 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate this. I know the editing gets hot sometimes, but I think everyone would agree that things go much smoother when everyone tries to treat each other with respect.

Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

i thank you for Your help by article Muzeum Ziemi Szprotawskiej and Castle Chrobry in Szprotawa etc.--Marcosilesiani (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thanks for being there in the int reaction to the 2008 Kosova DOI. Tocino has been changing the sources

and falsifying the information. Again, thanks. BTW do you know how to start lobbying for recognition? I been wanting to join a pre-existing one and send fliers, email people, or whatever it takes to get the KV on board. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Lobbying for Rep. of Kosova of course. I know that you have written to officials of embassies and such offices and I was wondering exactly how you worded your requests and/or letters. I just want to do something, spread the word, spread the information, get it going. I never told anyone, but, I am a loyal person of KosovaThanksYou.com. If a new country recognizes I inform them first, so far I informed them 5 countries, the rest, I was beaten by someone else; it's a good letter receiving a letter from KosovaThan..com thank you. Any help is appreciatedKosova2008 (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit undone

No need to get worked up about it. Everybody makes mistakes. It looked okay to me, but I didn't look closely enough. A simple "I do not agree to this edit, can you please undo it?" would have sufficed instead of a writ of "no standing" and "highly irregular". Chillax a little, my friend. Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for undoing the edit promptly. I do not regret writing it up, because the situation is murky and needs elucidating. And we are agitated, what with unceremonious hurried editprotects recently carried out by another admin -- see talk page for those voices. Best wishes, --Mareklug talk 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you shouldn't expound upon your reasons for objecting. You should, in fact; that's why we have these sorts of discussions. I'm just saying I don't feel that you needed to be quite so condemning towards me. I looked at it briefly and didn't think there would be any objections. Clearly I was wrong, and I have no problem admitting that at such a simple indication as "hey I disagree". I don't have a horse in this race, so I assure you it was a sin of carelessness, not malice. Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 22:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated incivility and failure to assume good faith

Your behavior has been reported here. Tennis expert (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Per earlier recommendation, your behavior has been reported here. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wikicommons

Can ask, do you have an account on wikicommons by any chance? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do. Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png - list of authors/uploaders. :) What'chu need? --Mareklug ^talk 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well i have commons too. I've uploaded a few photos of Auschwitz and Kraków. I was wondering if you would right a little description on each, in Polish to help people on Polish wikipedia when they are looking on commons. I have a gallery on my profile of all the pictures i have uploaded of Auschwitz and Kraków, you can find it here, they are all uploaded on commons. If was wondering if you would do that for me please. You know what to do, click on the photo itself then click edit and add the Polish description please. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll get to it between the halves of the Croatia/Austria game, I hope. --Mareklug ^talk 15:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha im watching that too. I want Croatia to win ;) It'l make it easier to find the pictures i have uploaded on commons if you see my contributions on commons Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually my gallery on commons will make it even easier see my gallery [1] Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Commons Ambassador Barnstar
		I award you the Commons Ambassador Barnstar for adding the Polish descriptions to my pictures on Wikicommons. Thank you very much ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. I know me and you disagree sometimes, but thats only human. Anyway you helped me when i required assistance, so I thought you dissevered it. Yes they are rare, I think thats the second Ive given lol. I'm not going to revert what you said. When I went to Krakow, that Jewish graveyard was about 30 - 40 minutes drive away from central Krakow. I have forgotten the towns name.

Also unlucky about Poland losing earlier. In all fairness, Germany are a brilliant team and will most likely win the whole thing. It was a tough match for Poland. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)