User talk:Paul Pieniezny/2007

Not a sockpuppet

I was reviewing my prior edits, and noticed that you had deleted my vote on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_30 because you claimed I was a sockpuppet, yet you couldn't even have the decency to alert me on my Talk page or ask me who I am and why I made my vote. Where is it written that I must make edits to Wikipedia every day to not be a sockpuppet? At least have the decency to give people a chance to defend themselves. Sachmet 18:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - I just noticed it was 172 who deleted my comment. My point still stands. Sachmet 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I lent my support to striking out your vote because I thought your account did not have enough edits. It is not usual for people who have so few edits to add templates and even vote on them. I said you may possible be a second account of someone else - that is not the same as a sockpuppet, but of course you cannot vote twice. Note that this vote is six months old. --Pan Gerwazy 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Belated response

Sorry for the late reply, but I finally responded to your question at my talk. Cheers, --Irpen 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for this edit1, edit2.Vlad fedorov 08:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Batu Lintang camp

I've replied to your comments on the talk page so that others who are interested can more easily see them. Cheers Jasper33 17:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pytalovo

All in a day's work :) I do, however, think, that the majority of the credit here belongs to the bot owner. Thanks for the update though—this sequence of events is quite entertaining!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not knowing the languages of the articles this article is interwikilinked to, it is very hard for me to sort all this mess out. I am definitely not moving anything in Spanish Wikipedia :), so if you are reasonably sure about what the text there says you might want to go ahead and do it yourself.

As for the name of "Pytalovo", my 2002 toponymic dictionary says that it is "possibly derived from a personal name" ("вероятно, антропонимического происхождения"), but provides no further details, except that such derivatives are very common in Central Russia. The "mesto pytok" theory is not even mentioned, although your theory sounds quite plausible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, once you can source it, it stops being original research :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Port Pirie

Greetings Pan Gerwazy Thankyou for your comments regarding Port Pirie. My early alterations to that page were a learning exercise and not vandalism as you call it. The only way to learn is by doing and learning from mistakes. My apologies for having agrieved you. I did attempt to insert the 2006 ABS figure after I thought I had successfully mastered the edit function but alas that attempt failed. Please be patient, I will become competent at this given time. I only discovered that I could edit Wikipedia a day or two prior to the subject of your complaint. Again my apologies. Cheers Mal Victmw 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. --Pan Gerwazy 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And again deleted. Some people do everything they can to avoid looking like vandals, but in reality showing that they are. Something to remember in future, in any case. --Pan Gerwazy 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Христосъ Воскресе!

Ура! :) --Irpen

File:Eastereggs.jpg

Счастья и радости! --Irpen

Estonia related AfDs etc.

I get your point. At first I thought he and this newly registered other guy were some of the anonymous new editors who had started barraging the the Bronze Soldier from IPs in Estonia. Seeing this second users skills in editing/manipulating Wikipedia, (see this Afd) and his clamed knowledge of Wikipedia conventions (example) I now see that he must have a very long edit history, possibly under an other user name. It is thus possible that he is a sock puppet of a banned user.

I think we could go for closing both AfD:s as sock puppet crap. -- Petri Krohn 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As you may have noticed, I started working on Restoration of Estonian independence, which should give a background for the two AfDd articles. Seeing all this POV pushing, I doubt if I will ever dare to release it in article space. -- Petri Krohn 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Please check that this hate speech is not reintroduced to the article. -- Petri Krohn 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool userbox!

Я у тебя позаимствовал кэгэбэшный userbox. I really like it )). Alaexis 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what's going on? Who violates my copyright? This is actually my self-made userbox. You have to receive KGB troll rank and pass KGB internet troll crash-course exams in order to have it on your page. По стойке смирно! Равняйсь! Vlad fedorov 13:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, as long as Biophys changed the article name to Internet brigades I suggest to link the "Internet troll squad" link to Internet brigades article. Vlad fedorov 13:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that the link should continue to be called "Internet troll squads" but go to Biophys's article, that does seem like a normal thing to do now. Better tell Petri Krohn as well. --Pan Gerwazy 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Yes, I had noticed PaxEquilibrium's adminship before, and I was inclined to support it, since we really need cool, level-headed admins who know a thing or two about the Eastern European region; PE seems to fit the bill. I was however worried about the hijackings of his previous accounts. Apparently, someone is able to "steal" his passwords, and I didn't see a guarantee that it won't happen again. I didn't want to supply others with more ammo to put him down, so I stayed out of the discussion. But he has taken some precautions, and I hope they are sufficient, so I'll give him some much needed moral support.

BTW, my RfA really showed how petty some people can be. Did you know Gmaxwell blocked me indef on Commons? Just when I had regained some faith that things were going in the right direction. It shows that it really isn't the rules, but the people who enforce the rules that makes a difference. I guess nothing will change with people like him at the rudder. Errabee 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Russians in Ukraine

I need your help on this article, can you spare some attention, regards. --Kuban Cossack 12:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline

After your comment on my talk page I am even more confused. I have created several articles about different oil and gas pipelines and definitely not because to put any certain line. This article never consists something like "bypassing Russia is the only answer for the future of energy in Europe". Yes, it said "Since January 2006, the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline project has been reactivated, probably also because of Russian gas disputes with some of its neighbours.", but the gas disputes were mentioned just to give one possible explanation why discussions about the pipeline restarted. However, as a speculation (although sourced), which is not the most important part of this articles, which is the pipeline, not Rusiian energy relations, I removed the part mentioning disputes.

Concerning looking from one or another side, exactly which information from which side is missing? I rather prefer that kind of articles to consist mainly technical information. Of course, in some cases you need also political background, but no more than necessary. And I use sources, which write about the pipeline, and you can't use "other side" sources if they don't.

OSCE conference. Well, when I started this article I wasn't very experienced editor. I used lot of material, but instead of making references, I made the external links section and included only links focusing on the pipeline. Right now I am not able to find the exact source, so I replaced it with other one and changed the text accordingly (which is more correct now, I think). And yes, In September 2006 I didn't edited the text very carefully.

As I already sayd, Haig proposed INLAND pipeline through IRAN. This is the Korpezhe-Kurt Kui Pipeline, built in 1997. Through Iran, it's connected with Turkish gas grid.

The Burgas-Alexandroupoli pipeline is the OIL pipeline, not a GAS pipeline. So, Burgas-Alexandroupoli pipeline is not alternative to the Trans-Caspian Gas pipeline.

Different dates or deadline are quit natural. In 1999, the agreement with private companies was already signed, and everybody expected the pipeline to become operational in 2002. As it was mentioned, the project was postponed in 2000 and discussions restarted only in 2006. Even no new intergovernmental agreement is signed and certainly there is no contracts with the private companies, so it's natural that the expectations have changed.

Concerning your proposals include political situation in Caucasus or Russian energy deliveries to Asia, they are more wider than the subject of this article. Maybe to start Geopolitics of Caspian energy resources? There is also Energy policy of Russia.

As our discussion is about how to improve the article, I propose to copy our relevant comments to the talk page of the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline.Beagel 19:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Thanks. Beagel 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Pipelines again

I wept reading this. Poor Lithuanians! They seem to be so frustrated. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"They are trying to divide us." OOPS - the wrong phrase to use. Putting oneself in the same group of countries who pinned the blame for both the Belarusian oil and the Ukrainian gas problem on Putin, is not a good idea. But perhaps after this they were prompted to do so by someone in the EC? All this for one factory in "new Europe"? As if most of the EC cares about such things at a moment when whole factories are switched to "new Europe"? Yesterday only, 200 workers arriving at their place of work in Buizingen-Belgium (fibre cable company Nexans) found an empty hall: all the machines, including computers, had been dismounted and transported to Slovakia during the long Ascension weekend. But they want solidarity from Western Europe. --Pan Gerwazy 09:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The divide between "old" and "new" Europe is bound to widen, as long as some member countries are still willing to develop their own policy, while others are just yes-men to Washington. The current constitution of the EU is based on liberum veto, a self-defeating principle that makes decision-making on vital issues next to impossible. Both Russia and the US may benefit from the weakening of the EU. We all know where the veto-driven Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ended. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Pan Gerwazy. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Estonia (1990-1991)

It has become apparent, that the delete votes represented very small demographics, all are information technology graduates from the University of Tartu. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren. -- Petri Krohn 21:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Estonia is a small country, with a handful universities in total. Tartu University is the biggest and most esteemed. Thus it attracts students from all over Estonia and internationally. So statistically most university graduates would have been Tartu graduates. The demographics of Tartu graduates is thus quite wide. English is a foreign language in Estonia, with Estonian being the main language of instruction, except for IT courses which are necessarily taught in English. Therefore that these editors with the requiste English skills are university IT graduates should be no surprise. However being university graduates they fully know and understand the importance of citing verifiable reliable sources to support their editing efforts and do not need to resort to administrative actions to block editors with opposing view points. Martintg 02:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, they say they live miles apart, and one of them sounds more like a lawyer than a computer nerd, which makes it even more suspicious: if they are not meeting at the University, where then? Because they seem to be meeting. Further, two of these guys (well, one of them may be a woman) were doing mighty things in Wikipedia a few days after they had arrived. They knew how to AfD, they knew about WP:Undue, ... They were not newbies. However, they were smart enough not to be caught like this: [1]. A look at the edits preceding that is interesting, if you know that Asper Biotech had been marked for speedy deletion (it is on 3 Löwi's talk page). Asper is also the name of a village not too far from where I live. But of course, it is not proof of "disruptiveness".

Well any university graduate anywhere would be familiar with policies such as WP:undue, WP:Verifiability, etc, it's what's expected in an academic environment, and in the final analysis, Wikipedia is attempting to achieve the same level of rigour. As for getting up to speed on AfD etc, it wouldn't be rocket science for a graduate. Don't forget that the vast masses of newbie Wikipedia editors are probably not university qualified, particularly American or British, this being english language Wikipedia. Don't forget, to be fluently bi-lingual as these guys obviously are requires some education. I think we can trip up ourselves looking for things that aren't there, and many innocent people end up getting wronged. Martintg 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

Thanks for letting me know. I don't follow the case very closely, but it is pathetic to learn that I would support Miskin "no matter what he does or says". In fact, I have never communicated with this guy, either on- or off- Wikipedia. Curiouser and curiouser. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla you shouldn't take this personally. I can think of very few people who did not agree with Swatjester's decision and were not accused by either Swatjester or his secret informer as my "hired muscles". And this includes many people whom I had never met prior to this case. Miskin 23:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Pan, regarding the comment "Miskin's general behaviour here is rather naughty", I ought to make it clear that, despite what Swatjester and his secret informers claim, the latest accusations that were made against me (about how I supposedly threatened other people in order to change the course of the arbitration) were too straight-forward lies. In fact this is as credible as the "admins in backpockets" allegation. Not too long ago they also tried playing the civilty card against me, and I think the attacks will not stop anytime soon. The purpose is to get me off wikipedia, the reason remains officially unknown. Hence why so many attempts are made to prove that I'm constantly into edit-warring, disruptive editing, personal attacks, uncivilty and now even real life threats. I can't think of one "wikipedia crime" which they have not tried to pin on me. Miskin 23:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Желать удачи

You're exactly right; the expressions Желать удачи and Желать успехов joined together in my memory to produce Желать успехи. This is a wonderful place, where my errors in Russian grammar are not only corrected, but their origins are investigated and explained too!  :-) --Reuben 08:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Leuven

There can't be two categories for the same thing. I separated Louvain alumni into those three new categories since it's nonsense to put the alumni of now Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve together and to use the French exonym in that category. There had to be, however, a category for the university before its split. I created a new one, Leuven before 1968, which just means "everybody who studied in Leuven before the split", be it in French, Dutch or Latin. It is absolutely not POV, since Leuven is a city and that name is used in English. I don't get your point about what you mean by "changing names", I just split up that category and corrected it in all the articles, I did not change any names. What I did indeed was changing links towards the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and the Université Catholique de Louvain into Catholic University of Leuven when it was before 1968, because otherwise one might think he studied in Louvain-la-Neuve or or at the modern university of Leuven. What is meant with the categories is made clear when one reads the introduction of the categories. We don't need a thing like Leuven(Louvain) since it's redundant when one reads what the category is for. --Dionysos1 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check my talk page for my answer. --Dionysos1 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at my talk page, please. --Dionysos1 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not the mess - Red army crimes coment!

Warning - according to the wiki rules debate is not the same as voting! So, You deleted my answers -this was not very polite.

Ttturbo 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Lithuanian diplomacy

Pan Gerwazy, please look at one of the most recent communications from Ttturbo which appears to summarize his mindset and goals. Given its content and the nature of the back and forth communications of the past few days, I'm suggesting that the best course going forward is to not directly engage Ttturbo any more. Even the most conciliatory and rational communications with him prompt suspicions of secret police machinations and accusatory responses. There seems to be a deadline approaching over the next five days that is driving his crusade. It's possible that once this deadline passes, Ttturbo may move on to other projects. I'm thinking of placing this same message on other key players' Talk pages as well. Thoughts?
Jim Dunning | talk 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But what do we do when he places {{helpme}}'s on his Talk page, which he has just done again? It just drags another poor editor into the morass.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Russophobia

Indeed, after reading Moscow theater hostage crisis, I got the impression that it was Russian government that was responsible for it. The true gem: It is not known if security forces were aware at the time that the explosives were fake.

I'll remove that now, as it is not mentioned in the reference (which is a story for itself). Nikola 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know much about these issues and don't think I could help a lot. If it is worth, there are a lot of statements by Serbian officials equating Kosovo with other separatist movements you mentioned, sometimes made jointly with Russian officials.

Most people in the West don't realize that claims such as those by Anna Politkovskaya are Russian equivalents of USA 9/11 conspiracy theories. No idea what to do about this. Nikola 11:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

hippo

so is it a walrus in your opinion too? ;) Myrmeleon formicarius 07:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Alexander

I got your message. Thanks. I didn't mean to change anything in the aticle except removing the spam by the owner of manimal records. I was going through all the edits by his IP number, since every single thing he ever posted was nonsensical spam. On the Alexander article I somehow managed to revert your changes as well, and I apologize for that.

daikiki 14:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work in Sandor Szondi and Elio di Rupo

Thank you for your nice work in the Sandor Szondi and Elio di Rupo articles.--BogaertB 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Thanks!

No problemo. When I see any IP address editing someone else's userpage, I always question it and 9/10 times it's vandalism (the other time being someone editing without being logged in). There seemed to be two IP addresses who vandalised your userpage on the same day: First one was reverted and by User:Gscshoyru, the second one made the edit then undid it but I gave him the warning anyway, as you know, because that behaviour is not on. Although I find it quite odd that the two of them made the same edits and they're both from Toronto, Canada. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the two of them. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Artikelnaamvraagje Nederlandse wiki (Russische Rijk)

Hoi, ik vroeg me af of je even wilde kijken naar de discussie over de naam van "Russische Rijk". De vraag is of dit niet beter in Russische Keizerrijk zou kunnen worden veranderd. De discussie staat hier. alvast bedankt! --Hardscarf 17:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalking and other disruptive behaviour...

Hey, I said why I AFD'd the page. Because anonymous editor repeatedly added speedy deletion which was denied (with recommendation of starting AFD instead). Petri's talk page is in my watchlist so I noticed the discussion there. I am not interested in stalking anyone, getting into editwars, debates, sockpuppetry or whatever. I am here to make encyclopedia and help unexperienced users. As the topic of the article was seriously disputed and AFD was repeatedly suggested I just decided to help people out to find consensus.

As of my signature. It's inside joke with my friends who often jokingly call me Lenin because of my beard and overall look. :) It's no way related to Petri or anyone else. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is, if the term would be incorrect grammatically I would have noted it long time ago. But as far as it goes to nuclear sciences the article is nonsense. I asked a friend who is expert in nuclear science and he confirmed it is hoax. If you don't believe me or my friend I recommend you to check with other experts who are also available in wikipedia or in your nearest university. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To a compatriot

Do you know that you and me are "compatriots" now? --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I included a section of your reply into my statement on the Evidence page. Hopefully you don't mind. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi,

I succeeded at my sysop nomination.

Even though you were my most outspoken oppose-voter, I thank you for raising valid concerns and conducting a civil discussion.

If you are still suspicious, you are welcome to keep an eye on my actions :). --Amir E. Aharoni 23:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[IRC

Yes, I agree. So much for the "transparency" of process expected on a Wiki. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the decks!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore peace prize controversy or not

You appear to know what you are doing on this issue. Thank you. KP Botany 04:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Muscovy

Sorry to have caused so much furore. None of these talk pages was populated, and the articles looked like deserted Britannica remnants. On the merits, of Russia is simply false for Ivan I; he was not ruler of Russia. As a parallel, the Great Elector was, as we have him, Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg; his son was Frederick I of Prussia; his distant descendant, was William II, German Emperor. Ivan I of Russia is exactly like Frederick William of Germany.

Derogatory? That's news to me, and this is my native language. Muscovy is the English of Latin Muscovia: the region, as opposed to the city, of Moscow. I have no particular objection to Ivan I of Moscow, which is why I didn't move his father, but it is less accurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Putin

Paul, in general, you should not revert edits from a particular account until that account is positively identified as a sockpuppet of a banned user and is actually blocked. As far as this particular revert goes, however, I do agree that the passage you removed does not belong in the article as it is rather POVish and unsourced. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen / ANI

You're right. That whole "thing" (for lack of a better description) started when Mikkalai signed a support comment with five tildes (or so I'm guessing). I responded to your comment here (including the relevant links in strictly chronological order), in case you're interested. — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Russia FAC

Russia is currently a featured article candidate. Please feel free to leave comments here.--Miyokan 09:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: regarding names

Thanks Paul, for your message and explanations regarding names. As I wrote on Alex talk page I really hope that similar practice will be avoided, as Alex have good name among editors and I hope his message will serve for good. Sadly such practice from particular contributor (regarding names) as you saw is not the first attempt, this is why such conduct raises a lot of disappointment. Have a good time and thanks for copy editing Mikalojus Daukša, Simonas Daukantas, M.K. 14:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey what a days, multiply articles are effected. In another hand I have to apologize of you, because to westerner such Eastern European issues, despite that disruption campaign caused by single undertaker, may look odd. However I have hope that with more neutral contributors involvement such problems will be reduced in the future. Once again thanks for your comments. M.K. 14:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul, instead of reverting me you can always ask me for sources if you believe there's something fishy. It's a much nicer way. Engaging in revert wars is not the best idea - and especially so when the opposing view is fairly easily sourcable. Anyway, cheers and take care. //Halibutt 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Russia sandbox

Hi Paul,

I wanted to see what you think of the changes I made to the Russia article in a sandbox I created at User:Miyokan/Sandbox. I greatly reduced the huge 'History' section of the Russia article, and changed the 'Culture' section through removing the cuisine information, reducing the 7 overcrowded pictures down to 3, and reformatting. Let me know whether you think it should be put up. PS- Yes, some of the history section needs to be edited so that some of the jumps through history make sense--Miyokan 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question

Posed by you here.

I suppose the point is a fine one: do articles that mention things that still currently exist around Ieper need to reference Ypres exclusively? Who are the articles speaking to? Modern, living people who may visit the area of Ieper? Or researchers interested only esoterically in Ypres and its place in history?

The article in question mentions Ypres directly in the text repeatedly; the infobox, with its GPS coordinates and strictly-proseless output, would seem to be more aimed at a more modern reader. Or is this just me?

Anyway, I see your reasoning for the change. I don't think it helps anybody - quite the reverse, I think it serves to confuse and muddy things - but I do see the reasoning. Do you see my reasoning for choosing the Ieper over Ypres in that place? (I ask, because I've done that in lots of places!). En is het van belang? :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Tang Yuhan

Hi, Tang Yuhan was deleted. I think that the deletion decision misinterprets the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tang Yuhan. I have requested to review this deletion. You may participate it. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)