User talk:Loosmark: Difference between revisions

Archives

Feb 11, 2008 – Dec 31, 2009 ·

Currently blocked Note: if you leave a message on my talk page, i will reply here (and not on your talk page)

Here's a good site for year by year information on Grand Prix riders and their respective teams: http://www.f1network.net/main/s180/st36833.htm Orsoni (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "so UNESCO's experts think the proper name should be Nazi-German but of course the wikipedia self-proclaimed experts know better. What we have here is some variation of the "Randy in Boise" phenomenon at its purest."

I read a book about the Holocaust, and it explains that there is an academic dispute over whether to call things "Nazi" or "German." I would imagine that many agencies of many governments and organizations call the concentration camps by different names. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, your recent comment ([1]) to WP:ANI violates Wikipedia conduct norms, notably WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE. You were previously notified of the arbitration case WP:DIGWUREN, which reiterates the high standards of conduct expected of editors working in this field (Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Principles) and allows administrators to impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions). Please consider yourself warned. Any subsequent violation of Wikipedia conduct norms in this topic area may result in sanctions being imposed without further warning. Regards,  Sandstein  06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If accusing editors if being "The anti-Polish lobby" and making "continued attacks on Polish editors" isn't accusing people of being racist, I have no idea what could be accusing people of being racist. What would you describe it as an accusation of being? Varsovian (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of WP:AE#Result concerning Radeksz (permalink).  Sandstein  14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loosmark. Thanks for adding results tables to Lotus 95T and Lotus 97T. If you're planning to do any more, can you please use the WP:F1 standard car results table format, an example of which you can find at Ferrari F2008. I'll convert the tables in Lotus 95T and Lotus 97T to the standard format later today. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly perfect except that for F1 car results, the "Car" column is replaced by "Team" - I've made the change. I also removed the "fastest lap" note, since the 95T didn't score any. DH85868993 (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nearly there. There was some confusion a couple of years back regarding the whole team vs. entrant policy. Using "entrant" with the full name avoids confusion and accurately represents period records. There are quite a few older tables (unfortunately one that DH pointed you to) which use the "team" formulation. However, if you check all the cars from the last two years you will see that they use "entrant". Pyrope 12:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. Sorry. DH85868993 (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pryop why have you added "Marlboro"? I don't see any reason for adding the name of the sponsor.  Dr. Loosmark  13:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the official entrant name that year, as recorded in the FIA entry list and on all official results transcripts. That's what the title sponsor pays their money for, they are an official part of the team identity. Some time the whole team name changes (e.g. Arrows became Footwork, FWRC became ISO Marlboro, and so on), and sometimes it is only a portion of the name that changes. Rather than having to descend into the POV realms of "where do we draw the line" we just use the official entry name in all cases. Pyrope 14:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use McLaren per WP:COMMONNAME.  Dr. Loosmark  14:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CommonNane refers to article titles and casual mentions in the body text, not to statistics recorded in tables. The problem we have is that the term "team" is a relatively modern introduction into F1 in an official sense. Prior to 1980 "team" could refer to one of a number of entities, including the group of people who actually maintained the car at the race, the person or corporate entity that held the entrant's licence, the person who actually paid for the entry into the race, the manufacturer of the car, and so on. Even since 1980 we have had "teams" changing identity and flying under flags of convenience as sponsorship money ebbed and flowed. For example, you can certainly argue that Layton House was actually the March "team" underneath the island blue paint, and that Footwork was Arrows all along, but it depends how you interpret the concept of a "team". In addition, some "teams" actually changed identity over a period of time; where would you draw the line between Frank Williams Racing Cars and Walter Wolf Racing? Anything that is open to interpretation and a non-neutral POV inherently becomes tricky to deal with in WP. Entrant is an unambiguous and officially recorded fact. Using that also allows us to accurately reflect how the cars were run in period. It is because of this complexity that we also use "entrant" as the field in the driver results tables. Pyrope 16:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Loosmark! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 732 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Karina Szczepkowska-Horowska - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you feel that the Gniezno Cathedral is high due to Royal Coronations.

I also wonder about Płock Cathedral which holds the sarcophagus forming the tomb of two Polish rulers, Władysław I Herman and his son Bolesław III Wrymouth.

Then again Cathedral of Christ the King, Katowice is the largest cathedral in Poland.

Basilica of Our Lady of Licheń is Poland's largest church and one of the largest churches in the world.

I had a look at various pages especially List of largest church buildings in the world. Basilica of Our Lady of Licheń should be High. I would support any of the other three listed above being High and all the rest being mid importance. Jniech (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a new and expanded preferential poll created on Talk:Karkonosze similar to the recent Ireland poll. The votes from the previous poll could unfortunately not be transferred over to the new system and you may need to recast your vote. I apologise for the inconvenience. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I notice you're creating articles about F1 cars from the 80s. If you ever need any help with any of those, please let me know, I'm a huge F1 geek and would love to assist in any way I can. Keep up the good work! XXX antiuser ^eh? 09:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have reported you for what I consider to be a breach of your revert restrictions. [2]Varsovian (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, this is the actual caption on the cartoon in Belarusian: Беларуская: Карыкатура: "Далоў ганебны рыжскі падзел! Ніхай жыве вольная непадзельная селянская Беларусь!" Dr. Dan (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Precz z haniebnym rozbiorze Rydze! Niech żyje wolna narodowy niepodzielne Białoruś!" p.s. Concerning your other "small correction", some of the Soviet leadership wanted to export the revolution and some of them wanted to consolidate the revolution in Russia. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made an adjustment at the Peace of Riga article concerning "some/most" to many. As for the caricature, the caption is self-explanatory. Please note, that I didn't "note" the Pole's resemblance to Pilsudski, or the ghoulish long, pointed, nails that both parties are using to dig into Belarus. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Over the past weeks I majorly expanded the article on German-Japanese relations and really need people to go scan my contributions. I want to set a high quality standard since I'd love to have it featured some day. I'd really appreciate your participation on its nomination for a Good Article at Talk:German–Japanese relations. Thanks in advance! --Gliese876 (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr. L., for your swift and helpful response with the population of Chełm in 1939. I'll certainly add that to the page under the section heading Population. Meanwhile, while I lack access to library resources, my "City or town?" nomenclature query remains open. Might you shed some insight based on the content of the Polish WP page (since I don't read Polish)? --With appreciation, Deborahjay (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you quote, "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." Please familiarize yourself with World Series by Renault and stop attacking people for improving wikipedia. EeepEeep (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Czuwaj Przemyśl requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MaxEspinho (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

that it's generally best to DFT[4].radek (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing this here because this discussion probably isn't appropriate for the article's talk page. I do understand the irony that while Polish nationalism included antisemtism at its core while Ukrainian did not, Ukrainian nationalists killed more Jews than Polish nationalists did. The reason was historical - Ukrainian nationalists for time worked for the Germans while Polish ones did not. Let me make an analogy: if the price for Poland to be free of both Nazis and Soviets were to hand over all Polish gypsies to Romania for extermination, would that be proof that Polish nationalists were anti-gypsy if they agreed to do so? No, it would mean that they were immoral and ruthless and willing to do twerribel things for the sake of their goal but not that anti-gypsy beliefs were a core aspect of their ideology. Similarly, the OUN's participation in crimes against Jews does not prove that their movement had antisemitism at its core. It only proves that they were immoral and ruthless and willing to do terrible things for the ake of their goal. I hope that clarifies what Himka and others were trying to say when they documented Ukrainian nationalist crimes.Faustian (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Shoya Tomizawa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still on your warpath, Loosmark? Trying to make believe the country I was born in, and still live in, does not exist anymore since 1990? Thank you for illustrating the stupidity of the name "West Germany", and of those who are fond of it. You are still stalking me, trying to provoke me, as recommend by your Polish buddies on the EEML. Better retire also the not-semi-retired half. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you remember our earlier discussion [5] concerning Ethnomusicology and I was wondering if you cared to delve into this subject a little further with me. Whereas the subject is of interest to me, it may not be so to you. Please let me know if you care to discuss it. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, BRM P133. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - British Racing Motors. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at British Racing Motors - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Codf1977 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, BRM P138. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - British Racing Motors. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at British Racing Motors - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Codf1977 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, BRM P139. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - British Racing Motors. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at British Racing Motors - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Codf1977 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, BRM P126. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - British Racing Motors. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at British Racing Motors - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Codf1977 (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, you may wish to consider creating a personal sandbox. You can work an article up there and get it into reasonable shape in peace. When it is ready you can simply copy/paste the sandbox article into the new title. A well developed article is much less likely to get a CSD tag, and should probably escape an AfD too. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but once released into mainspace, other editors can rip the article to shreds too have a chance to expand and improve the article, correct any minor errors and typos etc. The better developed an article is when released the less chance of a CSD or AfD. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall henceforth think of you as "Stubmonster". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a glossary. Pyrope 01:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loosmark. I have started a discussion at WP:F1 about "stubby" F1 car articles, of which you have created several recently. I invite you to participate in the discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and its perfectly understandable but...

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		...you shouldn't leave without getting this first radek (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you come back. There is a lot of uncontroversial, stress-free articles to edit. As I said earlier, your help with Polish Navy (and the abysmal Polish Merchant Marine), for example, would be much appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not pay attention to the harassment of some users, and the outrageous treatment of the administrator. I see what is going on here but I'm sure one day they will pay for it. Stay cool and just have fun. Best.--Mamalala 05:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Loosmark. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Loosmark. You have new messages at Varsovian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I wanted to let you know I am largely in agreement with your remarks here [6], not completely mind you, but I do believe our frequently at odds interaction does improve Wikipedia. Some of us go back a long way on these talk pages, and we do not need outside referees who haven't the foggiest idea about the history and culture of many of the subjects we are dealing with. Same goes for inside referees. Sometimes they over do it. Furthermore, I have a thick enough skin to handle a jab or two from everyone who throws one my way. Which is why I have always decried any form of censorship at this project. When someone has a POV that disagrees with my own, I have several ways to handle it. Ignore it, laugh it off, or debate it and try to change that other person's POV. But by no means try to censor it. Truthfully, Kotniski removing everyone's comments at the thread going on at the Chopin talk page really stunk. It's way too pompous that he should take upon himself the role of wise old sage or referee and thereby rescue the project from you or from me. Believe me, some of our mutual interaction and commentary is wimpy and mild, compared to the fireworks I've read elsewhere on the Wikipedia talk pages. If Kotniski is unhappy with some of the goings on at a particular thread at a talk page, he can move on to another thread or another talk page. His actions were completely unwarranted and would set a very bad precedent in our neck of the woods if they are allowed to go unchallenged. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Loosmark has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Loosmark's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Loosmark! Peace, Rlevse 00:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS care to archive some of your talk page? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your post on my talk, I've set up a system for you. Let me know if you would like it modified. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Anti-Polish_sentiment. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please self revert ASAP to avoid being reported. Thanks -- Varsovian (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up.

As a matter of interest if it were any other cicuit I'd probably agree with you. Take for instance Brands Hatch which is near me as a comparison. Both ciruits have had a similar number of grand prix, have equally long histories and so on. I have never once seen Brands Hatch used as a yardstick for car performance though, whereas that happens all the time now for the ring, thus I wouldnt consider a need for an article on Brands times. Like 0-60 and top speed the ring laptime for cars is being used as a yardstick by which performance of a car is measured and compared and for promotional purposes by the motoring media and car manufacturers. As recent examples this article from Ferrari and this article from Pistonheads gives you some idea how much weight manufacturers and media respectively give to Ring times. Bear in mind of course that those are just 2 examples from the last couple of weeks, the actual weight of references to ring times now by motoring manufacturers and motoring media is overwhelming. --LiamE (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a great extent about the PR. Much of it is simple PR. But the very fact they are using it as a PR means it is notable. The general rule for times is that the car is unmodified (excepting safety gear and timing equipment) and road legal. Some manufacturers such as Radical emphasize legality by driving their cars to and from the track when setting times, others such as Ferrari with the 599xx will note obtusely that the care was not road legal. Most look to add weight to their claims by having their cars and times independantly verified by independant observers such as Sport Auto or Evo. For most times it is pretty safe to ignore track conditions as no manufacturer or press will try and set a time in less than ideal conditions as a) they wont set a decent time and b) they are likely to crash trying. What prevents them doctoring their cars? Further independant testing. If a manufacturer claims to have done a 7 minute lap and no independant tester can get round in under 8 in obstensibly the same car they will get a lot of bad press. Questions about such a doctoring were raised about the Nissan GTR for example. As ever manufacters claims vary much more in their reliability than independant tests. Furthermore many tests are standardised as much as possible by testers such as Sport Auto. In all cases of course manufacturers claims are noted as such and indepnedantly verified times are noted as such. While I certainly agree that not all times are directly comparable that in no way deflects from the notability of the subject. --LiamE (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well best of luck with an AFD then. You'll need it. --LiamE (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made an AE filing which mentions you in passing, here: [7] Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little disheartened by your participation [8] here. As a result of your comments made at the AE request, I feel the need to ask you a question or two. I'd like to do so here on your talk page, but I thought I'd ask your permission first. You might be busy with other things or prefer not to bother yourself with this request. Up to you. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to ask of course.  Dr. Loosmark  20:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little busy getting my boat up north out of Chicago (couldn't decide whether to go to Door County or Mackinaw), plus the Stanley Cup took up some of my time. Blackhawks won! Then you too have been busy [9] here and here [10]. Anyway, as I mentioned I was a little disheartened by your participation [11] here. As a result of your comments made at the AE request I wanted to explain to you that I'm truly at a disadvantage at these proceedings. The main reason for that is that I find them to be childish and a waste of time. There are enough mind games played at the talk pages of some of the articles that we interact at (sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing), that the last last thing I need to do is run to some forum and look for some type of succor to assuage my bruised ego. I have a thicker skin than that. I do not plan to file this type of complaint now or in the future. Which is why I'm placed in a disadvantage. I simply do not believe in the suppression of free speech, free thought, or a frank expression of ones beliefs. I do draw the line at a bona fide personal attack (especially one that is obscene), but I'll leave it to you or others to make that call and run to ArbCom when you feel that it is paramount to do so. I'd be interested in your viewpoint concerning the matter. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what exactly are you asking me about. My comments were a reply to another user who made some not accurate comment(s). In general I'd say that I am in favor of free speech.  Dr. Loosmark  20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back more or less. Not totally (I should have named my boat, "Endless Summer", and left it up north in Wisconsin), but I have some responsibilities that require occasional attention back home. What puzzles me is your uncertainty about what I'm asking you about. While it's good to know that "in general" you say you're in favor of free speech, don't you think your remark at my AE [12] is strange, particularly "I find it interesting that Skapperod, Varsovian and Deacon of Pndapetzim, all known for countless disputes with Polish editors in the past, all came here trying to get Dan off the hook..."? Yet, somehow you don't find your perennial appearances, taking sides, at such venues to be unusual, let alone "interesting". Somehow your voice is silent, and non-existent when personal attacks are made against people that you have had disagreements with. What's up with that? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still hoping for a response. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to what exactly? As you can probably guess I disagree with how you described the situation. Let's just say that if somebody will ever call you "a disgraced user" be sure that my voice won't be silent and I will take your defense. Although come to think of it, your voice was always silent when personal attacks were made against myself a couple of months ago. But I am sure you wanted to make your voice heard, only that you were to busy sailing your private yacht or flying your private jet.  Dr. Loosmark  23:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No private jet. Please calm down. Response to what? How about this [13]? While you obviously cannot control what is placed on your talk page, maybe you should ask yourself why this individual thought that you were a receptive candidate to hear his opinion about me, that I was a "f-----g troll", etc. Better still, why didn't you object or ask that person not to post such garbage on your talk page? Hmm? Regarding the personal attacks against yourself, were they posted on my talk page? Believe me, I would have objected. In fact, I would have objected very strongly. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why did you write "please calm down"? I am very calm (I have just finished playing a beautiful Chopin sonata awhile ago.) Btw the diff you post above is from March, which is more than 3 months ago. To answer your question: I don't remember why. Btw, as much as I like to continue this conversation I am afraid that we can't continue because WP:FORUM kicks in. Have a nice day and happy editing.  Dr. Loosmark  00:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to pursue this, but I asked you to calm down because your snide remark concerning yachts and jets made me think you were agitated by my good fortune. If I was mistaken, my apologies, but not for my good fortune. As for my remarks that brought on the AE, well, they were judged to be uncivil, but I dare say not untrue. Was thinking about contacting Lady Catherine through a séance for a third opinion concerning their incivility. Didn't know you could play Chopin (perhaps it was on a CD), I also play Chopin, but on one of my three pianos. Hopefully it wasn't a mistake on my part and you can also play Chopin on the piano, and that you play very well. When Chopin is played poorly, it becomes very comical. Therefore I wonder if "I listened to a beautiful Chopin snota" would have been more appropriate than your stating that you "finished playing a beautiful Chopin sonata". Probably it's not the same as your recently obtaining a "doctorate", but you still never did tell me what your degree was in. As for the three month old [14] difference, it is a long time ago and that sufficiently explains why you "don't remember". Have a nice day and happy editing as well. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan thanks for correcting the above message and providing a link to the CD. I was wondering what a CD is. I am a bit surprised that an advanced pianist like you only have three pianos, I have four of them and I am far from being an advanced pianist like you are, really.  Dr. Loosmark  18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, I have just noticed that you changed the template from "advanced pianist" to "intermediate pianist". What happened!? Aren't you an advanced pianist anymore? In my opinion you are just being too humble really, I am pretty sure that you are still an advanced pianist.  Dr. Loosmark  18:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, so I've changed the template back to "advanced". I was so disappointed with my rendition of a difficult Liszt piece that I did change the template down a notch. I've since mastered the piece. Btw, congratulations on having four pianos. Now the only thing I'd still like to know is what your doctorate is in and who conferred it on you? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, I think I have already said that I don't want to boast with my academic achievements. I don't want any favors. And besides Wikipedia is an egalitarian community where we are all equal, a guy with 5, 6 titles or a taxi driver / cleaning women, it doesn't matter. It's the value of contributions that counts. Or as our founder mr.Wales put it: the Encyclopedia that everybody can edit. Now I am really concerned that the Admins won't like this discussion because again WP:Forum. Let's go to improve the project, ok?  Dr. Loosmark  19:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) I'm not asking you to boast about your academic achievements, Loosmark. And I also agree that Wikipedia should be an egalitarian community. Which is why I get a laugh out of people who believe that they're descended from the House of Scrotum, even though they're not, or model different garbs on their user pages. If you happen to be a cleaning woman or a taxi driver doesn't matter to me. If you want to add "doctor" to your user name is also O.K. with me, even if you are are taxi driver or a cleaning woman. I was simply curious if you indeed had doctorate in something. That's all. A simple friendly question which you continually rebuff and evade. As you wish. More importantly, I think it's more telling that your memory concerning my piano skills [15] is somehow better than your memory [16] concerning obscene personal attacks [17] against me on your own user talk page and not reporting them or objecting to them. Strangely you have a lapse of memory here [18] and say "I don't remember why" and that the "diff" was "more than 3 months ago". Well, both posts (the obscene one and the piano template) were in March and only a day apart. That discrepancy, and related comments by you concern me much more than whether "the Admins" won't like this discussion because again WP:Forum (sic)". Personally I doubt that "the Admins" really give a hoot about our present interaction here. We're still not being watched by the "Dear Leader" or someone else from "Oceania", are we? Besides, if you remember, I began this thread with [19] asking your permission to delve into your participation at my AE, and related matters. I think you've explained yourself sufficiently to me and anyone else who's interested. Thank you for the many occasions when you have complemented me and expressed your solidarity with my contributions to the project. I'm also glad you're an [20] exopedian. I'm going sailing for a while. Best wishes. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these people with garbs on their user pages? I have not noticed anybody with that and I am really curious how does that look like. Maybe I will get a laugh out of it too!? Please show me the user page in question. Thanks for being "O.K" with the "doctor" in my user name (it goes without saying that you having "doctor" in yours is very fine with me too). Thanks also for the in-depth analysis of the "discrepancy" in my memory from more than 3 months ago. Speaking of memory discrepancies, I have found one of my own: somewhere above you wrote, quote: "Regarding the personal attacks against yourself, were they posted on my talk page? Believe me, I would have objected. In fact, I would have objected very strongly." Seems there was a lapse in your memory because a personal attacks against myself was indeed posted on your talk page: [21] I am now searching for your objections pardon very strong objections. uh I can't find them. where did you object Dan? ah doesn't matter probably you were busy and just didn't notice.. but now I am curious who made the attack... oh my god. IT WAS YOU!  Dr. Loosmark  20:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For helping out with this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, appreciate your help. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

On July 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ORP Rybitwa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 55 hours from editing . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  Sandstein  17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Loosmark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am blocked for 55 hours because 3 days ago I asked an admin if I can make a comment?? Seriously!?

Decline reason:

On hold, moved to WP:AE per process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

On August 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Republic of Ostrów, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

On August 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Władysław Wawrzyniak, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

A tag has been placed on Wacław Bojarski requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for personal attacks as seen here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Loosmark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I mainly replied to Sandstein's absurd ban, it was not my intention to launch a personal attack. Weirdly I was blocked 2 minutes after my comment(!), hardly enough to read it, by Admin SarekofVulcan with whom I had many disputes in the past. I request unblock.

Decline reason:

It took me less than a minute to read it as well, if that helps you. It is clearly a personal attack; if it was not your intention, or if you cannot discern civil discourse from a personal attack, then unblocking you would seem unwise. If you feel that the blocking admin has been involved in content disputes with you in the past or currently, then it would help to provide more specific information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuru (talk • contribs)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Loosmark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was under severe stress due to the, in my view, absurdity of the ban. I apology for the outburst. I request unblock, I won't interact with Sandstein anyway.

Decline reason:

Lashing out at volunteer administrators on this project for doing what they need to do in order to protect Wikipedia cannot be tolerated. The fact that you have a short fuse for anger is no excuse, and is unacceptable. Volunteering to not interact with one editor is peanuts if you have no ability to restrain yourself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

On 22 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Japanese escort ship Okinawa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]