User talk:Loosmark/Archive 1

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged

Editors are cautioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia that approaches its subjects from a neutral point of view. While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. Editors are further cautioned that when a change to an article becomes contentious, such as through a few early reverts or a strong objection on the talk page, they should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page until a compromise or consensus is reached. Use the content dispute resolution mechanisms including content

Dear Loosmark, I've restored your comment on my talk page with an edit summary Restore Loosmark's comment. Loosmark was not trolling; I erroneously thought that he was trolling.[2]

During the WW2, the German military was responsible for the crimes. Not all the German military were involved, but most of them were involved. I think using "the German military" instead of "the Germans" can solve the problem.

Happy editing! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AdjustShift. I made further comments on the use of 'German military' on you talk page. Loosmark (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Loosmark, see this. I accept that you are a good-faith editor, but please remember that sometimes dispute can take place on WP. There was a misunderstanding between you and me. It was a minor dispute, so let's move on. Happy editing! AdjustShift (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look to be honnest I'd would describe what happened a bit differently than you do. But anyway, you are right, lets move on. Happy editing to you too! Loosmark (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  I hereby award you the

  WP:LAW } 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Thank you :) Loosmark (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC has opened about this issue at

Ok, thank you. Loosmark (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot m8!--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome :) . Loosmark (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lookmark, I thought that the past disagreements were over. Since the disagreements, I've tried to normalize relationship. See this, this, and this. Trying to settle old issues by unjustly criticizing someone is not a right approach. AdjustShift (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AdjustShift i'm very puzzled by your comment, for some reason you seem to asume bad faith. My only concern in this case was that you showed a lack of understanding what constitutes edit-warring and there is risk that will be a bad example for others. Loosmark (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the title of the articles were incorrect, pre-war P.Z.L. products used the acronym as spelt here and didn't use hyphens, these are modern untruths.Petebutt (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• go to Cynk, Jerzy B.. “Polish Aircraft 1893 – 1939”. London, Putnam. 1971.
  ISBN 0 370 00085 4, this book is the original version of your poorly translated book from 1977. Jerzy went to great lengths to find the correct designation formats for pre-war polish aircraft, as will become evident when you read the book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

See: discussion about changes and PZL.. Report there forthwith! LOL. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I've reposted the matter to the BLP board: [3]. Thanks!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 06:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been

hello loosmark, i think one can find both numbers of death victims in the article: "Both the population balance figures, in the range of 2 to 3 million,[93][94][96][101][109] as well as the number of verified deaths in the range of 500,000 to 600,000, are cited in current discussions.[96][101]" would you agree, that this is an acceptable wording and that it gives credit to both ways of thinking? best regards. Kalifat (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Haar's conclusions are the correct ones, so the current wording, while not perfect, is acceptable from my point of view. Loosmark (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i've noticed he re-wrote the article massively. Loosmark (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4]Xx236 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a cite for the pop culture reference in this article? Otherwise I'm likely to delete it as I'm trying to get it promoted. Thanks in advance. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Loosmark,

you added a comment to talk:Free City of Danzig#latest edits adressed to me and an IP, calling the lastest edits "shocking nationalistic POV". If you'd take a closer look at the edit history you might realise I added some "fact"-tags and a source for the ambiguous ILO-part. I'd politely ask you to clarify whether you adress the term "nationalistic" to me , Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German author is a former Nazi pupil, German general, Wehrmacht apologist.Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know and for your time there.--

Hi to remove fact and refimprove tags from articles without improving them is vandalism. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question of if I like a source does not come into it- all refs have to be reliable and verifiable in English as this is the English wiki

• ref 2 is for a Google book review that does not even support what is being claimed.
• ref 3 Has two major errors that the 14 sub unit of the 14th SS and their 4th Regiment were involved. The division did not have a 4th regiment of a 14th sub unit these errors put all the web site info in doubt.
• ref 5 is a dead link to an external site.
• ref 8 puts even more doubt onto the claims in the article as it says the SS Halychyna Division was responsible not the 14th SS Division. not I have never heard of the SS Halychyna Division.
• The rest of the refs are in a foreign language to the article and are not verifiable but of they of the standard of the ones above it puts there creditability into doubt also. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney, I see you are a seasoned editor, so why are you lying? I bet you know that sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Tymek (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know whether you're aware of it, but there is currently an ArbCom case regarding [[[User:194x144x90x118]]. Because of my few interactions with that editor, and because I recommended that ArbCom look into the matter, I'm listed as a party involved in the case. In my evidence, which can be found with the rest at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118/Evidence, I mentioned you, because 194x had mentioned you when he approached me on my talk page.

At first, I totally forgot to inform people whom I'd mentioned, so I'm doing that now. If you have any comment or response, I assume you're more than welcome to post there. Having never dealt with ArbCom before, I don't really know what the protocol is. Anyway, cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Loosmark (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the edit history you will see I reverted it to the version where the ref improve etc tags were here [[5]] you will see User:Paweł5586 had removed them. not for the first time I may add. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just checked the article and one deleted in error which I have just replaced. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
		I, Piotrus, present you with the Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class, for your contribution to Poland-related subjects. May you keep the good work up! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Loosmark by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk on 16:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Piotrus! Loosmark (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do the same, but Piotrus turned out to be faster. Loosmark, your contributions are very appreciated by me. Good job and keep those articles going! Tymek (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to say good job.

talk) 15:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I should sign my mane here because I also think that your work on Polish related pages is exceptional. Thank you very much.--

talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Your contributions are very much appreciated. Congratulations!!!--Woogie10w (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. You have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion#Requested_move to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here: [6] for persistent abusive behavior.Faustian (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is to notify you that another editor made an arbitration enforcement request against you at

Loosmark, for the reasons provided at [7], and under the authority of

Loosmark, I hope you take this lesson to heart: anything you say on Wikipedia should follow

WP:NPA - or it may and will be used against you. I am sure you can find other subjects to write about for the next few months. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the advise, I'll try to draw positives from this experience which will allow me to grow as a wikipedian and raise the overall quality of my contribution to the project. Loosmark (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loosmark, just curious -- based on what is your edit of Japanese minelayer Okinoshima is a "clean up"? I intend on reverting it, but decided to ask you first in case I'd be wrong in doing so and the reasons for me being wrong, if any. Thanks! --Mokhov (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Where is the date linking "depreciation" specified? Also, how about the word ordering of the dates, e.g. "May 2, 1936" vs. "2 May 1936"? --Mokhov (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! From there I've also gone to the as-of-yet-unconcluded debate: wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, so I guess I won't revert your change after all. Thanks for taking time to reply. --Mokhov (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Jäger as you failed to do so. You are REQUIRED to notify another user if you post about them on

There are two options: Either go via a Request for Comment (RFC) at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users or via the Administrator's noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. The admin's noticeboard will be reviewed by admin's chiefly, whereas the RFC will be reviewed by a wider audience.

Some advice - do not use emotional or dramatic language as it will almost almost always bias editors against you. Use a heading such as "Request for review of admin "uninvolved" status" and the simply state your case as clearly as possible.

Despite my advice, I personally do not expect you will get the result you are hoping for. However you are free to try of course. I will not get involved in this review unless asked to give evidence by an uninvolved editor. Manning (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reopen the WP:AE thread, let another admin close it. AdjustShift (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I read about a warship in a military history, I go to my shelf and pull out Conways to check out the specs on the ship. The same goes for issues like the Expulsions, when Bonn claims 2.225 million dead, I want to see the details of the number and how they arrived at the bottom line. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your practise is most certainly a sound one, I'd just remark that Conways isn't always the most precise, sometimes i find some errors. Loosmark (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[8]]

[[9]]

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post on my talk page. Please note that I am a new user. Previously my edits were made from an unregistered IP address. I am unsure of what you are accusing me of and frankly I am not very interested therein either. However, if you would like to discuss any of my edits, I will be more than happy to do so.Varsovian (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suprise, surprise. Loosmark (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that comment mean that you do or do not wish to discuss my edits? It would be better if we were to work together to resolve any issues which you may have with my edits. I will be happy to provide you with any sources you may need in order to understand why I have rewritten the London Victory parade article so as to reflect the true nature of the invitation of Polish representatives.Varsovian (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I understand very well what mission you were on. Loosmark (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are completely uninterested in any discussion about the article or the facts of the matter. Fair enough. Varsovian (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm just uninterested in provocations orchestrated by the usual suspects. Loosmark (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"provocations"? Surely you do not wish to imply that I have been editing in bad faith, do you?Varsovian (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to imply anything. Loosmark (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by my edits being a 'provocation'? Varsovian (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who said your edits are a 'provocation'? Loosmark (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, so when you said "i'm just uninterested in provocations orchestrated by the usual suspects" you meant that I was not one of the usual suspects. Glad we got that cleared up. Could you now possibly explain what you meant by "I understand very well what mission you were on"? I'd love to know more about my mission, could you tell me?Varsovian (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You came to my talk page and ask me a question and I've answered you politely but now you have turned this into an interogation. I don't like this anymore. Instead tell us about those 330 hits that you new user found, have you examined all of them? Loosmark (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Loosmark/Polish Football Championship winners, User:Loosmark/Polish Football League Cup winners, and User:Loosmark/Polish Football Super Cup winners. Let me know if I can do anything else. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark - your recent evidence at the EEML case has been removed to here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Request_to_the_ArbCom_and.2For_clerks_by_Loosmark.

Your statement did not meet the criteria for evidence, which is the sole purpose for its removal.

As to the substance of your comment, I have added a reply at the above link. Essentially, I do not see any need to stress yourself over such allegations. Manning (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for your moral support. At any rate, what would be interesting would be to hear in the talk page what you have to say about the matter. You are welcome to follow the links I gave in the talk page. Feketekave (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are two issues here. One is the fact that the numbers as shown on the page are inflated according to current scholarship - much of it done by German scholars, not that that matters. This is something that has by now become fairly well-established; as I said, it is discussed in full in the [[10]] page. If you agree and others agree, I do not believe it would be extraordinarily difficult to establish this in the Volksdeutsche page; the important thing at this point is to have a full discussion in the talk page.

A separate issue to mention in the talk page is the fact that these numbers represent the total number of civilian dead in a particular historical period; it is difficult to find what the exact relation of them to the expulsions (as opposed to the war) would be, and how many would have happened irrespective of the expulsions. This is a very interesting matter, but it is possible that more sources may be needed before this issue is handled fully. Any citations you have to give here (or in the "Expulsions" page, where the tone seems to be gradually calming down) would be very helpful.

At any rate, please do not become discouraged and mention what you have to say in the appropriate talk pages. Feketekave (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that book reviews counted as seperate sources. Thank you to clarifying for me that they are.Varsovian (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I ask you what was your intention when you made this diff? I reverted your change as the template deletion seemed out of place. Cheers, 79.181.116.27 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That huge template doesn't really belong to that article. Loosmark (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's huge when it's opened... There surely should be some way to make it "closed" all the time. Anyway I only guess it does belong somehow, the article is included in the template. 79.181.116.27 (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe it can be closed i don't know. But anyway in my opinion that template should be split in more parts... Loosmark (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With your recent edits on

Your name had been brought up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthead. I have responded to this by making a request which involves you as you are one of the three users to which I refer when I say "the three users who have accused me of being somebody other than I say I am".Varsovian (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I was systematically addressing the issues at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Soviet invasion of Poland/archive1. I was removing the POV that has been added since the article passed its FA and improving the prose, etc., as requested there. qp10qp (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have total faith that qp edits are good faithed and neutral. If you disagree with them, can you explain the problem(s) in details on the talk of the article? I am sure qp will reply there in detail. Please try to avoid reverting him wholesale. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider. You are a valuable editor, the project needs you. I suggest that if you are stressed, you either take a wikibreak or do some uncontroversial edits. For me, writing

Left you a message here. [[11]]--

While I'd regret your decision to leave, I must nevertheless add one note of caution. You were under an Arbcom discretionary sanctions warning, and I'll put on the record here that at the moment you decided to leave I was very, very close to placing you under a revert restriction or similar sanction. You are of course welcome to come back, but if you do, please do not give in to any possible temptation of doing so covertly under a new account – under the present conditions this would amount to illicit sockpuppeting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And whatever for was I close to being placed on restriction? Loosmark (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, some people are already rejoicing and taunting. Can't even wait till you've actually left to start with the incivility and personal attacks.

talk) 08:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

BTW, Piotrus is right that the best way to Wiki-destress without having to leave is to put your

talk) 08:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I second some of the guys here. Do not leave, Wikipedia needs you. Rest for a few days, and reconsider your decision. Tymek (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to review who dunnit but I want to recommend that Varsovian tries to stay away from Loosmark and Jacurek, and vice versa. A voluntary restriction on commenting about others and reverting them may be a good idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea however please note that Jacurek already got blocked for 1 month for "edit-warring, battleground behaviour and harassment, and placed on a 1R/d restriction on all Eastern Europe related pages for another six months". Also the same time Future Perfect came to threaten me on my talk page. Needless to say he didn't even give a warning to Varsovian who started the whole thing and who called Jacurek an idiot. Loosmark (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, we've had our differences. You are a valuable contributer - you have an admirable intensity and focus, and I've enjoyed (dealing with) your comebacks at me. Please reconsider.ANNRC (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ANNRC. Loosmark (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed somewhere your grievance regarding original research in wikipedia? The reason why, IMO, it is unacceptable to have OR in Wikipedia is that it cannot possibly be peer reviewed. It's a shame, but inevitable. Politis (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my grievance was because an admin stated that an article with OR was well written and well researched. I was told many times that OR is a definite no no on wikipedia. Loosmark (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not an uninvolved admin because I left a sympathetic note on Jacurek's Talk page, but I agree with Jayron32. I think it's premature for other editors to ask for Jacurek's block to be reviewed unless he asks to be unblocked and is turned down. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously drop the

WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Why are people so panicaly afraid of discussing things? I believe that a very bad block was made and since it seems to me that the blocking admin missunderstood the exchange between Jacurek and Varsovian made it worse than it was. I asked what others think of it. There is no need to go into panic mode and close the thread after 5 minutes, I have nothing against Future Perfect, he is a good admin, but I believe he made a wrong decision which should be corrected, otherwise we risk loosing a good editor. I would rather spend this time drinking a coca-cola or an eating ice-cream but I am concerned for the good of the project and try to do what I think is right. Loosmark (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark; unless Jacurek asks to be unblocked this is really a moot issue. Please concentrate on other issues, as I suggested above (DYKing articles on Polish ships and such). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see, when you call ... some of those people from just west of Poland in 1939-1945 ... "Nazis" you're violating Godwin's Law. If you call them "Germans" or "German soldiers" then you're being an evil nationalistic Pole who supposedly thinks that all Germans were Nazis. What you're SUPPOSED to do is keep your mouth shut and just not

Heh, you know what? When I went to sleep exactly the same thing came to my mind, I remembered that somebody some time ago was telling I shouldn't use the world Germans because it reflects badly on Germans and introduces "collective guilt". Now I said "Nazis" and it's again wrong... The biggest irony is that I have quite many books about WW2 and they all use both words without problems. Loosmark (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Concerning your comments at Talk:Battle of Westerplatte, re: "Inspiration", and certain types of music "sucking". That's not easy to tackle. It's hard to believe that 1939 is now 70 years ago and styles and tastes do change. In ethnomusicological discussions it's probably best not to insert ones musical or political prejudices into the mix. Take Chinese opera for example [12], some might think that it sucks. I don't because I understand the time frame and circumstances that it emanated from. Others might think Henryk Wars and Andrzej Włast's ditties [13] or German military music sucks [14], although it was popular in wartime Britain and some of the tunes were considered "catchy". So it's important to keep in mind the time frame when one judges music. I hope you found my examples enjoyable. Btw, I'll bet in spite of you claiming that their music "sucked" the Germans were listening to it instead of Polskie Radio, and the third example I gave you might have been popular during the Westerplatte skirmish, or shortly thereafter. Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not falsify literal quotes, as you did by making this revert. The passage you reverted is a literally quoted piece of text which had been misquoted, as I clearly stated in my previous edit summary. I cannot believe you could be unaware of the fundamental rule of all serious written discourse that text in quotes must be kept intact. If you don't believe me, look up the text in the original source: I corrected it to what the original text said (with a legitimate explanative addition in square brackets, as it should be per
  WP:MOSQUOTE
  and the universal conventions of all academic discourse.)
• In addition, I have now repeatedly seen you making contentious reverts without even the common courtesy of a minimally informative edit summary (e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18]. This, in itself, is disruptive, and I am therefore now officially warning you (again) to be more careful when making reverts, as you were already close to being sanctioned for disruptive revert-warring a few weeks ago.
• If you think that by reverting me in this fashion you can magically turn me from an "uninvolved" into an "involved" administrator with respect to sanctioning you, you are mistaken: I am not in a content dispute with you; at the moment I am simply upholding indisputable demands of academic integrity against a case of obvious content corruption. I will nevertheless not take administrative action against you this time; however, I am asking you to either explain your revert (and make it a good explanation), or self-revert. In the absence of a good explanation I will otherwise treat your edit as vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re [19], I will actually accept you were perhaps not aware why your edit was disruptive; however, this doesn't change two things: first, if you honestly "don't understand what's so bad about" changing a literal quote, this displays a degree of naivety about academic discourse which, in a person who wishes to edit encyclopedia articles about history, I find rather troubling; but secondly and most importantly, even if you didn't know that one shouldn't change the wording of a quote, you must have seen that I told you exactly that in my immediately previous edit summary. You reverted as if you hadn't even taken notice of what the person you were reverted had been telling you. That, quite independently of your previous knowledge of the rules of quoting, and independently of the objective merits of either your edit or mine, is a very serious sign of a fundamentally uncooperative attitude to editing. This is a serious matter and I am therefore seriously asking you to re-think your mode of operation in this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right after my warning above regarding unexplained reverts, you did this – yet another (partial) revert in the same series of contentious naming edit wars, again lacking an edit summary. Note that I'm not talking here about the objective justification of either edit (I have absolutely no opinion about that), but about your communication style.

You are therefore now placed under a revert limitation:

1. 1R/24h on any page, with the following additional restrictions:
2. You must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary.
3. You may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion.

As usual, reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt from these restrictions, but that's

Take it easy, Loosmark. The above restrictions are really but an extension of good editing practices. I again implore you to take a break from controversial subjects. There are a lot of uncontroversial subjects needing help, I mentioned Polish Navy related articles some time ago. Please, don't do any harsh actions. You are a valued member of this project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you could really learn a little tact. I bother trying to be fair by not taking part in that case, even though I could indeed judge fairly here (contrary to what you think, I don't always agree with FutPerf). Furthermore, I've pointed out ways you could move on and get your restrictions lifted early, as well as pointing out where to go to file your appeal when you were in the wrong place last night. And what do you do? Make comments to try to discredit me like "hear hear", when it was completely unnecessary because I was staying out of the situation anyway. Notice that I haven't even made any comment on the validity of FutPerf's restriction on you. I don't need to; the other admins with less connection to FutPerf have reaffirmed your editing restrictions. That should give you pause and make you think maybe you actually were in the wrong here and just move on. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Loosmark, I just wanted to leave you a note that you might want to change your signature slightly. Not what it says (calling yourself "Dr. Loosmark" isn't a problem) and not the way it looks (I personally like the blue background) but per

I like your new sig (colorwise and all of that). You may want to replace the "retired" text on your userpage with the nifty Template:Retired. Thanks for your kind words, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never met you before, but I appreciate those comments.

Well, I wouldn't call it bizarre, but certainly quite a bit overzealous. Very short pages tend to be harder to estimate by the bot in practice, and have a higher rate of false positives (because there is less material to compare). Your stub was just long enough for CSBot to pick up, and it tagged.

This is why it doesn't delete: the human being reviewing the situation would have obviously figured out that there could be no infringement and just removed it. — Coren ^(talk) 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can split the 1984 season by bike used, if you can provide information on which bikes were used for which races. Thanks!Orsoni (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Great find on the web page!Orsoni (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI here. Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes undone. EoGuy (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]