Laszlo Panaflex

The Silk Road is now found as 35,000 Kilometer's according to Nation Geographic after recent discovery. I'm sorry if i changed it unexpectedly but it needed to be updated. Jeffwood2001 (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2016‎ (UTC)Reply

Jeffwood2001: Please see the discussion at Talk:Silk_Road#Length regarding this issue. There are a number of different distances listed in sources for the extent of the route. However it is unclear whether they mean the length from east to west or if they include various off-shoots. The route was also different lengths in different periods, and it eventually includes sea routes as well. As a result the length has been removed from the page as the sources vary and appear to be imprecise. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• File:Structure of the First Bulgarian Empire during the IX-X century.png
• File:Bulgaria Samuil raster.png

source: own work?�� — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.92.231 (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The first has the source cited in the description and links to this map. The second states the source under "Notes," below the Licensing statement. There is a discussion on the talk page of the article regarding the maps. Please keep the discussion there as there are a number of editors involved. @130.204.92.231: Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip-off, Laszlo (and your recent lynx-eyed edits). If you think that 'by' really does require some work on it, let me know. I'm in a rush so I hope I haven't missed anything or misinterpreted. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just checked. See for the source Dan Shapira, which I think I paraphrased pretty closely. I've tired eyes though. Thank goodness, people like you are around to keep me on my toes. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The change to Joan was also made recently by a mobile IP; I reverted to 1313. Setton gives a date of July 1313; this makes sense because it was tied to one of the elaborate Angevin marital pacts involving the Crusader states in Greece. Choess (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the term India was coined by British much later even though they came to India in 1600 and the country of India was formed only in 1947. So all the spice trade was made only to the Tamilagam country which was existing at that time. Please do not mislead the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Givetoalex (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Givetoalex Hello, da Gamo is noted for reaching India, not Tamilagam. Your wording makes it appear that his mission was to reach Tamilagam, specifically, and that he is noteworthy for reaching Tamilagam. But that would require reliable sources in support. Perhaps it is worth noting that that was where he landed, but replacing all instances of India is WP:UNDUE. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

British came to trade under East India Company, just saying. Re: Tamilagam, I have no opinion on it. Being.aussie (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Should there be images in the Infoboxes? Thanks Doug Weller talk 05:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I assume you are referring to this edit, which was reverted a while after you posted this question. I've never worked on that article, but I did support the NoEthnicGalleries policy, so I would say no. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Iryna, I hope you are having a wonderful holiday season! Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article Hunter Greene (basketball) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nick Number (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nick Number So under this standard, only NBA players are notable on WP? Is that being enforced project-wide? This is an extreme standard that would wipe out scores of pages of college and foreign basketball players. Greene had a record breaking college career and is still a prominent figure as a radio and TV announcer of Lobo basketball games. Why is his page being singled out when those of other non-NBA players have not been? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rikster2 Jweiss11 Is the nhoops standard above being applied project wide? Seems it would have a huge effect on WikiProject College Basketball. Limiting notability to those who have played as a pro removes a lot of college record holders, like Greene; and it would mean a player could not get a page until after his college career was over. Please advise. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, college players can meet WP:GNG and not meet NHOOPS. The intent of the guideline is to show criteria in which subject consistently meet the GNG standard. Looking at the Greene article, I would say the sourcing is weak and should be improved to show that that subject meets GNG (if he does) using reliable, independent third-party sources. You can find direction for good sources here. Just my two cents. Rikster2 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the sources, fair enough. The newspapers.com database ends at 1977 for the needed sourcing, and internet archives begin around 1995, so players from the 80s are a difficult case. Still, this seems like grounds for a better sourcing tag at best, not a deletion. Most of this info comes from the UNM official athletics site. Are those not considered independent RS? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, UNM sources are not independent. They are reporting on their own athletes as part of their sports information responsibilities. They are generally reliable, but that alone doesn't confirm GNG. You can remove the PROD if you want. It isn't an WP:AFD notice. Rikster2 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll remove the prod and work on finding better sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey Laszlo. I think this new ip (51.235.157.155) and the two ips you listed here are the same. They're all from the same location. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Spaces: personally I agree. It looks and reads better too. There was a mix of spaces and no space, with not predominating, so I changed the others for consistency. Thanks for promptly sorting it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited First Mexican Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mexican Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Laszlo,

you deleted my changes in the Artikel of the Holy roman Empire. The Artikel suggests that the Holy roman Empire is a multinational, multi-ethnic union of Kingdoms. If you read it without knowing anything about the Empire it suggests that any member could become Emperor. While it was in fact not possible to become roman-german King as Italian Nobleman. My changes were minor. I didnt explain the Election i just made an example why the Kingdoms were not equal. Please help me improve the articel instead of deleting it all.

greatings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernhard Oehler (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bernhard Oehler, the election process is discussed in the fourth paragraph of the introduction, and in more detail in the body. The opening paragraph has a specific function under WP:LEAD, to define the subject and when and where it existed. The article doesn't say anything about who could become emperor until the fourth paragraph, where the process is explained. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

==

Please read the documentation for Template:Redirect: "Its purpose is to reduce confusion by helping users get to their intended page if they were redirected to another page while, for example, searching for a topic. An example would be when a user searches for Achilleus (as in the emperor), but ends up on the page titled Achilles (as in the mythical hero) after being redirected." In this case, Boston uprising redirects to 1689 Boston revolt, while a person might instead have been searching for Boston Uprising, the eSports team, which differs from the redirect term by only one capital letter. 9³ 06:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Laszlo,

I'm duly impressed. None of us editing Frederick Douglass noticed that Harper's Ferry was, in fact, in Virginia in 1859. Bravo! (I'd give you a virtual slice of Rigó Jancsi, but there's no template for that!) Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wow, hostile much? I simply asked for a reason beyond a bare revert. Images do look and format better when aligned to the beginning of paragraphs, and with this layout, images like the one relevant to Austria-Czechoslovakia appear in the wrong section on small devices. No need for that when there is room for the image in the proper section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why do you delete the hidden notice about the discussion changing the infobox map of the article "Holy Roman Empire"? This discussion is still open in the talk page of this article, and I propose to use the map "File:Holy Roman Empire 1190.svg" in the infobox. If you have your own opinions, please make your comments in this discussion. This hidden notice can attract the editors' attention to talk about the proposal about changing the infobox map, so it is so wrong to delete the notice.

User:123.117.244.218

15:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for a notice buried in the code. Did you ever even look at the long discussion regarding the map that took place just last year? That resulted in replacing the map you are proposing with one produced specifically from that conversation. Now you want to throw that out without even reviewing what was discussed by several editors then. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is no mistake about the map "File:Holy Roman Empire 1190.svg". This map shows the same territory of Holy Roman Empire with the current infobox map, but this map shows the borders of European countries at the end of 12th century, which is better to reflect the history then.

User:123.117.244.218

15:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The place to discuss that is at the article talk page, not here. Numerous editors participated in the discussion that produced the current map. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you expressed support for the reversion to "Norse people". Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion here. If you don't mind, could you explain why you feel that limiting the article to a Norse ethnicity is the correct step? Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The place for this discussion is at the article talk page. This has been the consensus version for years. Also, the opening sentence is intended as a summary and is not the place for excessive detail, especially naming every compass point. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Laszlo (I love your handle; I'm half Hungarian)

I am wondering why you undid my edit adding History of Russia and History of Ukraine to the article. I did it because I was looking at the Rus' Khaganate article and saw it there. It seems appropriate. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Paul. Those templates are already on the page, in the See Also section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello LP. I saw that you pinged NeilN at the ANI thread. Except for one edit in October, Neil has not edited since August. You may already know this but I thought I'd mention it so you wont wonder why he does not respond to your ping. MarnetteD|Talk 16:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, I didn't know that, thank you for telling me. I hope he is OK. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. He gets really busy with work projects that can keep him away for months at a time. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 16:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to add the quartenion eagle of holy roman empire which is the de facto seal of the empire. Also, HRE is a monarchy which means the arms of the current monarch is the coat of arms of the country. Francis II is the last monarch of HRE therefore, His arms is the last official coat of arms of the empire -- 17:15, 7 March 2019‎ Royalistandlegitimist (talk | contribs)‎

You have deleted my text in the subject "Crimean war". What do you call "adequate citation"? All Turkish historians clearly recognize the semi-colonial nature of relations between the Ottoman Empire and Britain in the 19th century. If you don't know that, it's against you. About Russian historians to say too. Sincerely, from Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.68.34 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I would like to know why are you undoing my changes when I correct thge spelling of Kyiv?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

"English spelling" - come on, I have read enough of WP editor/administrator pages to clearly understand what WP is using:D
Just look on what one of WP administrators (Ymblanter, russian guy, OF COURSE!!!) bases his opinions:

Concerning Ukraine, the naming is done "on consensus"

All names "reflects the most used English name" ([profanity removed]).

Question of WP user

In Ukraine, the official language is Ukrainian only. Russian, Romanian and Hungarian do not have any, regional or official status. Please return my edits. Also today, the US Council on Geographical Names unanimously supported the decision to replace the official name of the capital of Ukraine from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in an international base. The Embassy of Ukraine in the USA reports this on Facebook. We will seek to rename the article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaliyf261 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ymblanter's answer

You are already seeking this for years and so far failed miserably. You may want to look at Talk:Kiev/naming. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS, not on the basis of the opinion of the Ukrainian government. The current consensus is to keep Russian names.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Concerning russian owned Japanese islands, the talk is different

All names are taken from Russian, because Kuril islands are located in russia.

Question of WP user

If you found some of my edits an issue with you, you could have reverted that and explain the reasons as to why, so I could better understand it. But you probably decided that was too much work for you. Instead, you decided to revert the entire edit outright, reverse all the work, and threaten to block me. So much for assuming good faith. - Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ymblanter's answer

Would you please stop playing an idiot? Kunashir is located in Russia. All countries except Japan recognize this, and therefore the principal names of localities and geographic features located on Kuril Islands are taken from Russian, not from Japanese. Moving articles from Russian names to Japanese names is disruption. (Japanese names were already in the articles, for the record). Adding info about smth currently located in "Kunashiri, Japan" is disruption. You perfectly know this. If you do it once again, I will block your account. Is this sufficiently clear?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Question to you, Lazlo

Are you supporting russia, soviet union, all the KGB thing? I know that Hungarians do not like Ukrainians, but are you, personnaly dislike Ukrainians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 August 2019‎ (UTC)Reply

T0mk0us: English language Wikipedia uses English spellings. If you wish to pursue this issue, please raise it at Talk:Kiev/naming, not here. I am not Hungarian and am only following Wikipedia policy, so please do not engage in personal attacks. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Laszlo Panaflex: You are Hungarian. Not personal attacks, because all you are doing is the russian stuff. You know it very well.

Actually, I am working for one of the best Canadian media. More then 10 years. So I will follow all your WP "answers" to the people who is just waiting to read another russian thing.

THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talk • contribs) 04:30, 24 August 2019‎ (UTC)Reply

Hello Laszlo, You have added to the Soviet casualities following lines:

697 tanks destroyed[16] 55 tanks captured 673 trucks captured 306 artillery pieces captured 300 tractors captured 303 aircraft destroyed[17]

The First reference is to the Jowet and Snodgrass. I haven't read that book but the number of destroyed tanks you give is quite near the number of tanks destroyed on Karelian Isthmus summer 1944 only. The number destroyed during the whole war is something else that has multiplier much larger than 2!

The rest of the lines you have added have reference to the book by Matti Koskimaa. That book handles only the battles on the Karelian Isthmus summer 1944. I didn't find any of these numbers from that book.

I can comment from other sources that the number of captured tanks given by you is also near of the captured during summer 1944, but the most tanks captured were taken during summer 1941 campaign. The exact number of captured field artillery pieces is 842 (This is the number that was later used by Finnish artillery. It doesn't include broken ones captured or those used as spare parts, anti tank guns, anti aircraft guns or coast artillery guns). The number of captured guns is taken from History of Field Artillery Part 2 (In Finnish).

The real number of destroyed Soviet airplanes is about 1600 by fighter planes and 1030 by AA and 75 by the Navy. These numbers are from "Suomen Ilmasodan Pikkujättiläinen" by Heikki Nikunen,Jyrki Talvitie and Kalevi Keskinen.

With Best Regards, LasseSakari (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

LasseSakari: I did not add any content regarding casualties to the Continuation War article. I would suggest discussing this at the article talk page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Laszlo, You didn't do it! It was from an unidentified user. I wasn't careful enough. I have to delete the content of that edit myself. These unidentified users don't probably give any answers or correct anything they have made.

With Best Regards, LasseSakari (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear past contributor: — Opinions are needed on the Ulysses S. Grant Talk Page. Help would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply