NoPuzzleStranger

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 20:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

There is Talk page for every article

Could you please use article Talk page instead of reverting it over and over. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 20:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you please mind your own business. If an edit summary suffices to explain an edit, there's no need to use the talk page, which I will use when I want to make a lengthy argument. You, however, reverted the page WITHOUT explaining yourself. And then you put a template there which says one party has voluntarily ceased editing. Could you tell me which party that is? Thanks. NoPuzzleStranger 21:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But if you want to make an edit to a page that someone (or even more, several people) disagree with, you should discuss it on the Talk page. That's the way things are supposed to work on Wikipedia. Please refer to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Solver 21:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please, stop the revert war over Czechia and Czech lands. If you cannot reach consensus, discuss it on Talk:Czech Republic, create RFC to get some outside input... if normal means fail create a poll or ask for mediation... but please stop reverting. --Wikimol 21:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, please note that you may end up violating the three revert rule with your actions. I suggest you start using the talk pages to discuss your proposed edits and reach a consensus. Solver 23:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please take where when trying to resolve edit conflicts due to two person trying to edit the same page at the same time. You removed a note of mine: [1] -- User:Docu

Please have a look at the Talk:Czech page and, more importantly, stop the revert war! Matt 10:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Czech lands vs. Czechia

Is this some sort of mad scientists contest? I don't think that your audience is going to be interested in an pseudo-academic dog fight. Why don't you say e.g. "born roughly on the territory of present-day Czech Republic"?

I had a run-in with Juro as well and can empathize with you feelings. He can be extremely insulting and difficult to work with. However, I'd urge you however not to degrade into this kind of counterproductive behavior. Let's ignore his biting comments and settle this in a civilized way.

Jbetak 23:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Although the voting period just ended with a 14-8-2 vote, I will admit once and for all that I used it more as an evaluation of myself. Being promoted would have been a plus. I was more interested in who voted, when they voted, who would change their votes and when, and the comments I would receive. Hopefully I will correct the main weakness that was raised by those who voted oppose -- that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. Also, I will try to interact more with those Wikipedians who did not vote at all.

As for next month, I don't know if I will nominate myself again. I might not think about it until somebody else puts me up there on RFA at a later date. Eventually, I see myself as an admin, especially as the number of articles and users continues to grow. Thanks again and good luck at improving this vast archive of free knowledge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Alt.usenet.kooks

I don't like the title any more than you do, but please please please do not willingly create forks like that. The alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup had the history and the more recent edits, and while we sort out if it should be moved back, please edit there and nowhere else. You're only making it harder to clean up the mess when we do decide to move it back. JRM · Talk 17:50, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Be bold, but not reckless. Please contain your enthusiasm and dedication over restoring this page to its rightful title and give people a chance to hear all sides. This will remain fixable if and only if people do not insist on having one thing or the other done while it is still possibly disputed. Stay cool, please. JRM · Talk 18:04, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

As you can see, all is right with the world again. Thanks for not pressing the issue further at the time. JRM · Talk 23:34, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Trey Stone and Davenbelle

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! Trey Stone has Requested Arbitration with me:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Evidence

You are mentioned in evidence that I have presented and I'm bringing this to your attention. Comments and evidence of your own are welcome.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 01:13, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

You might also take a look at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Trey_Stone. -- Viajero

• hallo NoPuzzleStranger

can you please stop cooking up again and again old stories. Uwe is very sick and we do not like in our project to bring his name in connection to fisting etc. As you probably know every tenured professor in 4 year schools can be included - thank you very much for your consideration and keep up with your fine work for wikipedia (which we helped starting many years ago) Oceanographer 19:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

If you think your Wikipedia editing is relevant in your autobiography, then the desysopping can be mentioned as well. POV like "possibly Europe’s most outstanding young marine scientist" or "Kils lost ... due to a corrupt Kiel judge" will have to be modified too. NoPuzzleStranger 19:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

the first was a statement of a third party, a faculty, and cited Oceanographer 20:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's a one-sided quote making up more than half the article. NoPuzzleStranger 20:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I deleted "corrupt" due to your advice, its a quote with the names given Oceanographer 20:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Identity

Latest comment: 20 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, as you may be aware, it has been suggested that you are the same person as User:Wik and User:Gzornenplatz. If you continue your present approach to editing, I am certain that the claim will be made again at some point and the issue will need to be settled somehow. Accordingly, I think it is necessary to have you answer the question: Are you the same person as Wik and/or Gzornenplatz? Please reply promptly. --Michael Snow 16:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, although I sympathize with them. But what exactly do you mean with my "present approach to editing"? NoPuzzleStranger 17:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, as I imagine you already know, Wik and Gzornenplatz are currently banned from editing, although they/he/she have the option of appealing this ban. Any accounts used by that person may be blocked under the blocking policy.

What I mean by that phrase is that the issues you take an interest in, and the way you have been dealing with disagreements over editing, are so strikingly similar to Wik and Gzornenplatz that you are liable to be blocked for impersonating them, even if you are a different person. --Michael Snow 17:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't impersonation of person X require a positive claim to be person X? I don't suppose that taking interest in certain issues, or dealing with disagreements over editing the way I'm doing, is in itself blockworthy (unlike others, I'm not violating the 3RR). Incidentally, how is one supposed to appeal a ban? Just telling the Arbcom "I appeal this ban"? Would it come to a different decision then? Normally in a justice system an appeal goes to a different, higher court. NoPuzzleStranger 17:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

In the normal world, impersonation can be accomplished without actually making a positive claim, even if this is not the typical case. However, perhaps "impersonating" was not the best choice of words, "imitating" would be closer to the point.

As indicated, Wik/Gzornenplatz may be blocked if they/he/she edit Wikipedia from any account (or IP address, for that matter). Naturally, the accounts of banned users do not always announce, "Hi, I'm banned user X." They may be identified by technical means, or because the new account exhibits characteristic hallmarks of the banned account. In either case, the evidence is necessarily circumstantial. It is of course theoretically possible that a different person would use the same computer (the technical identification), or that a different person might adopt the same editing mannerisms and interests. With respect to the latter scenario, it's typically advised not to do this; whether or not the new account is the same person, imitating a banned user is generally disruptive, and disruption is another potential justification for blocking. Thus a theory can support blocking the account either way - as a reincarnation if it's the same person, and as a disruptive user if it's a different person. Quite simply, people are better off not imitating banned users.

With respect to appealing a ban, the Arbitration Committee ruling regarding Gzornenplatz stated, "Gzornenplatz is reminded that he may appeal the ban to Jimbo Wales or to the Arbitration Committee, via e-mail, IRC, or other means of contact outside of Wikipedia." Wales and/or the rest of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees would serve as the higher court in this system, effectively. However, "appeals" in the general sense do not always go to higher courts; in the American judicial system, at least, it is sometimes possible to request reconsideration of a decision from the same court, either before or instead of appealing to the higher court. Different decisions can certainly result, particularly if new arguments or evidence are offered, or if circumstances have changed.

As for how to go about it, one could email any of the arbitrators, I suppose, although choosing one of the more active ones would probably yield the swiftest response. I'm not sure how the appeal process would actually function, but the Arbitration Committee does have a private mailing list for deliberations. I imagine it could be arranged to allow other people to post, although I don't know its address.

If this is not just a theoretical discussion, and an appeal is actually contemplated, I'm willing to act as an intermediary if that is acceptable. If more private communication is desired so this can be discussed confidentially, I can be reached by the wiki email function, although I am not currently at home with access to my email, so it would be a few hours before I can respond. --Michael Snow 19:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm not "imitating" anyone either. I'm just (among other things) tending to some articles that Gzornenplatz tended to, and he was after all not banned for any such editing, but for a supposed vandalism spree by Wik 1-2 years ago. If that leads to the conclusion that I must be the same person, and I'm banned for that, then I can't help it. As to that appeal, I just wonder what new arguments or evidence or changed circumstances the Arbcom imagines there could be; or how, in the absence of such, a reconsideration would lead to a different result (Jimbo was already involved in the last ruling, so he's not likely to change his mind suddenly either). NoPuzzleStranger 19:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

What new arguments? Any arguments, just about; so far as I know, Gzornenplatz never really attempted to argue his position in the case, apparently preferring the same kind of fatalistic resignation. --Michael Snow 20:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, what else could he do? Tim Starling said he was Wik, and the Arbcom believed Tim, and at the same time Jimbo said Wik was banned, and that was that. So if the Arbcom were to "decide" now that I'm Wik too, well... NoPuzzleStranger 21:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

On the identity question, there really wasn't much other evidence for anyone to believe, since Gzornenplatz never tried to show he wasn't Wik. Even without technical evidence, the similarities were pretty convincing. It's sort of expected that if one is a different person, it would be possible to come up with something to support this claim. This has been managed for two separate users who were once considered reincarnations of Alex Plank.

As for the ban, I understand that Wik/Gzornenplatz might not have wanted to deal with this issue through Jimbo, and would not have considered other options since the ban originated with him. I would hope that the arbitration ruling makes clear now that the Arbitration Committee does have the authority to modify and/or rescind the ban. Even if the reasons for the ban ultimately go back to the vandalism spree, I am convinced that the arbitrators would respond positively to an appeal if some sort of apology/mitigating explanation could be provided. Nor do I think that Jimbo would intervene or exert pressure to keep the ban in place. Jimbo has said pretty clearly that he has no desire to overrule the Arbitration Committee, and I'm confident that this case is not where he would choose to start doing so. --Michael Snow 21:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

There is little you can do to disprove an identity if you want to remain anonymous. And if the Arbcom were willing to rescind Wik's ban, it could have done so on its own. But they're not going to do it without some kowtow from Wik, which is not likely. The explanation for the vandalism was already given at the time - namely, that his own user pages were vandalized first, and Jimbo refused to do anything to stop it. NoPuzzleStranger 22:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

Hello there. Since you decided to join the revert war on Grand Duchy of Lithuania, then may I ask you what was the "separate government of Grand Duchy of Lithuania" within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or did you join the revert war just for fun? Halibutt 19:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean, what was it? Poland and Lithuania had separate governments headed by separate grand marshals (see marszalek). NoPuzzleStranger 19:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, the duties of Marszałek Wielki Koronny and Marszałek Wielki Litewski were: court etiquette, starting and ending the senate sessions, aiding the king during juridiciary process and supervising the police duties. His prerogatives had little to do with anything you might call a government. Any other ideas? Halibutt 23:42, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's as far as the powers of a "head of government" in a monarchy went at that time. Still, the grand marshals were the "chief ministers", and there was a separate Lithuanian one, which is the whole point here. NoPuzzleStranger 00:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the marshals had nothing to do with the government. In PLC there was no government as such and all decisions were made by the Sejm, that is the diet, senat and the king. And these were common for all parts of the state. Halibutt 00:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Then why does the marszalek article written by Emax say he served as the "prime minister"? Since when does a "prime minister" have nothing to do with the government? NoPuzzleStranger 01:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's an oversimplification because of bad translation. Marszałek was sometimes referred to as pierwszy minister, meaning first of the advisors or first of the servants, as he was above all the other court officials (cup-bearer, sword-bearer, flag-bearer, writer, geometrician, mathematician, secretary and so on). Literal translation of that term results in prime minister, though the Polish name for the latter post is Premier. It's simply a bad translation, nothing more. Halibutt 02:57, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I reworded the article and cleansed it a tad. Hope that would explain the matter more clearly. Halibutt 03:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course there was no government in the modern sense, but those court officials were the closest equivalent to ministers. So if you have problems with saying "Lithuania had a separate government" you might say "Lithuania had a separate set of court officials". NoPuzzleStranger 11:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, they were as close to modern government ministers, as to protestant ministers. The chain of power ommitted them completely. If they were powerful, it was not because of the function, but because the power of their families. All prerogatives currently reserved for the government were reserved for the Sejm (one for all lands of the Commonwealth) and the King (again, only one). It wasn't until the Permanent Council (Rada Nieustająca) of 1775 when the first semi-modern government of the Commonwealth was formed. And even then it was only one for all lands.

If one seeks equivalent of modern ministers in pre-18th century PLC, then it have to be the Senators or simply members of the Sejm. Marshals had little to do with politics or governing. Halibutt 13:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

The Sejm was the parliament, not the executive. Things like "supervising police duties" seem to me like executive functions. From [2]: "The king appointed five ministers for Poland and five for Lithuania: chancellor (foreign and home affairs), vice-chancellor, grand marshal (justice), court marshal (household affairs), treasurer, also grand and field commanders of the army as well as lesser members of the administration." NoPuzzleStranger 10:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Archiving Cantus 3RR report

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It was archived because things normally get archived once there has been no further activity in the section for 24 hours or so. I let this one sit somewhat longer than that, to see if anyone wanted to do anything, and nobody did, so since it had been several days already, I moved it out. Noel (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

PPS: Also, please note that at the time it was archived, that request was the second-oldest request on the page. The oldest things generally go, in archiving runs, right? Noel (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

use talk pages not project pages / do not lie

...if you have to state your personal views. Provide facts for your claims. Do not lie / misrepresent. Your way of doing things on the project page is annoying. Yes, I would complain about that, about your way not to provide facts and to misrepresent. I did not complain about anything while writing on the project page. It is a pure lie of you. You cannot say I complained, if I did not. If you do so it is lieing to discredit me. Stop this. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have been misusing the project page to make your personal view look like policy (you have cited that page in edit summaries when reverting others as if it were a policy that justified your revert) or at least de facto "current use" (when in fact that is only because you made it so through thousands of moves, without establishing consensus first; before your moves the "X Entity" format was only used in a small minority of cases). So if you want to propose the principle "don't use project pages to state your personal views" that whole page would have to be deleted, as it is nothing but your personal view.

I have not misrepresented anything. If you deny the fact that you unilaterally moved tons of pages to create a fait accompli without discussion, it's you who's lying. Anyone can check your contribution history and anyone check random "X Entity" articles and the redirects that point there, and see that at least 90% of them are a result of your moves. You're complaining just now, and at the same time you deny that you complained? The fact that you felt the need to point to the self-evident fact that I did not post "statistics" shows that you're obviously denying my claim, and complaining that without statistics it is invalid. Or else what is your intention of making this point? NoPuzzleStranger 22:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

at time when you wrote that I complained this was wrong because I did not. I only wrote (or tried to write) in NPOV. There were no statistic. You talked about hundreds maybe thousand pages unilateraly moved by me. Now after all you start the next case by claiming: Anyone can check your contribution history and anyone check random "X Entity" articles and the redirects that point there, and see that at least 90% of them are a result of your moves. PROVIDE STATISTICS FOR THIS CLAIM! and you still have to provide statistics for your other claimes. I already provided a way to check the origin of current use by adding move infos. I WORK on providing statistics. Yes I doubted in your claim, that I unilateraly moved hundred maybe thousand pages. But I did not complain. I only wrote stats are missing. And NO: I did NOT deny your claim. In opposite to you I use statistics, if I have none I cannot deny. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

please stop lying about me. I do not insist on the content in the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming . I am main contributor but several other people contributed and changed info as well Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only one besides you who made a nontrivial change to that page was me, and when I did so, you inserted a sentence that I "insist on posting the following". So obviously I can likewise qualify your opinion. NoPuzzleStranger 13:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and my post was true and yours a lie. because I only said you insist on one paragraph, you said I insist on the whole page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I've removed my post along with blanking the entire page. If you revert it, you obviously insist on it, and I will then restore the comment. NoPuzzleStranger 13:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mediator comments

I've seen your request for mediation, so I decided to drop by and look at things. It seems you've created this subpage of the project without ever directly talking to Tobias about it on his talk page (I didn't see your name in the history). I'm assuming Tobias thinks you're trying to rally people against him by posting it in the wikipedia namespace.

Could you guys try to talk things out on each other's talk page? Ask him why he moved the pages he moved and tell him why you disagree. Remember, words like "unilaterally" can anger people. Try to keep down any frustration you may feel, and talk to him like you want to be spoken to. I'll leave Tobias a message too. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

You haven't looked at it enough. I didn't create that page, I just added a paragraph there. And "unilaterally" is perfectly factual. If I do something unilaterally, I don't mind being spoken to that way either. NoPuzzleStranger 15:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And "unilaterally" is perfectly factual. Agree Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

XII Region of Magallanes and Chilean Antarctica

thx for reverting improper move (break of history) at XII Region of Magallanes and Chilean Antarctica Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brandon Toropov's nomination

Hi NPS, just to clarify: did you intend to vote in support of Brandon? I'm wondering only because your comment was that the nomination had been made in bad faith, yet you left the comment in the support section, so I thought I should check with you. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I saw your next comment and now it's clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)