Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:34, 13 January 2010

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Ban Appeal Notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Appeal_of_an_Unjust_Topic-Ban and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks.

File:Athens montage.jpg

OK, I added source declarations. I think that the article of Athens should have a collage as its primary photo but this image is rather narrow for the infobox. Would you agree if I created a new, wider one? Dimboukas (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2009

149.254.49.20

I have unblocked 149.254.49.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There are no open ports at this time. If trouble develops feel free to block it again. Fred Talk 19:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:File permission problem with File:Tbilisi Old District.jpg

The photograph in question is my own work. The problem here is that since I could not resize the image because of not having an appropriate software at that time, I captured the photo on my screen. I sadly do not have the time to remove the computer mouse that got caught up in the shot but I will work on it sometime in the future. I can not give you any more proof besides stating that I am the author and this is the license I choose for my work.--Satt 2 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How exactly do you want me to prove that the person listed and shown on the photograph is me? Do you want me to take picture of myself with the hard copy of this photograph in my hand, yelling that its me or what? --Satt 2 (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_January_7#File:Cathedral_dome.jpg and the following item. On the basis of Satt 2's claims about these images, which he evidently did not take himself despite his claims, most of the image uploads of Satt 2 are probably copyvios. Independently he has already been quite problematic in his edits to Europe and Talk:Europe on two separate occasions. Mathsci (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for hunting these down, good job. Uploader is now blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia in La Francophonie

Well, I guess stranger things have happened, especially when the French are involved :p (Taivo (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

A Question

Can this image here be transferred to WikiCommons or is it a copy vio in your view (ie. not personally made by the uploader)? I ask you this since you have had some interaction with the uploader and may know his/her work. It would be a valuable addition to Commons if it is a legitimate photo. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion

It would be of great help if you give your own opinion about these small conflicts that happened recently: two users want to remove the lion from the template (see the talk page too, the template here is not allowed to be put, but the Bulgarian one is allowed and they are removing the Macedonian ethnic flag and put lack of sources tag for common knowledge things. Thanks in advance,--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, I do not want to believe that they work together, since they write same arguments on the two talk pages.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Some help needed

I noted this contributors uploads, were possible for commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Koliri&namespace=6

but in tagging them up I found some of the captions were what I think is Greek?

Would you be willing to look through them, and get anything that can go on Commons up to standard and moved? ( And some IMO unjustified FFD's resolved)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have nominated Jakup Veseli, Rexhep Demi, Veli Gerra and Azis Tahir Ajdonati on the grounds that they do not meet WP:NOTABLE as virtually nothing about theme exists in the literature. Along comes User:Sulmues bombarding the pages in question with sources, all of them in Albanian and impossible to access (let alone evaluate), except for one: Robert Elsie . Yet on looking closer, these four individuals do not appear anywhere in Elsie's page. --Athenean (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your help appreciated

Per as far as information "word-for-word copy-paste job" is not true and "replaced some cited sections of the article with copyvios" also not true. I really don't know what the modified text with names and tonnage of vessells can be deemed as copyvios". While adding a word "Murmansk" as "copyvios" - it's really something new for me - please advice were is the margine between copyvios and original research. Thanks.Jo0doe (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also would be great if you advice me a correct name for such edit - - in source "German tanker JAN WELLEM (11,776grt) departed Murmansk during the evening of 6 April for Narvik". While in article now appeared as the 11,776 tonne Jan Wellem that had sailed to Narvik from the secret German naval base Basis Nord at Zapadnaya Litsa in the Soviet Union on 6 April. I guess WP:SYN? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens.rf and rollback

• I'm sorry, everyone is entittled to a "rollback" mistake. It won't happen again. My apologies to those concerned. Antonio Martin (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

One less agenda account. A small victory for the project, but a victory nonetheless. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Topic ban

I saw your topic ban on my talk page, and I would like to ask you to reconsider. You said that this edit "displays a reckless disregard for NPOV and is therefore disruptive." Why does it display a reckless regard for NPOV? Are you aware that it included the summaries of the older DoE reports which I had originally proposed to exclude from the introduction, after discussion about whether those summaries should also be included? The remainder of the text proposed in that edit is a summary of the most recent peer-reviewed secondary source from an academic publisher on the topic.

I know things can get difficult when the prevailing position on a controversial topic on which both sides have firm positions is suddenly opposed by the peer-reviewed secondary academic sources. That is exactly what is occurring now, and I urge you to take a close look at the sources before making a final decision on what is or is not NPOV. Thank you for taking a closer look. Dual Use (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

editing after topic ban ends

Can you please have a look at the editing of User:HistoricWarrior007 over at 2008 South Ossetia war? You had imposed a 2 month topic ban on him 2 month and 2 days ago. Since it ended, he has restarted editing there, in a questionable way. For example, he re-inserted several statements, despite a consensus on the talk page to remove them.

The last two months had seen a stop to the constant edit warring at that article which had been going on for almost a year before (please check the history). I fear that it is on track to decend into revert wars again. --Xeeron (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching the situation. With H.W. it's sometimes difficult to find the exact point where merely opinionated and hyperactive editing turns into tendentious and disruptive editing, so I haven't yet quite made up my mind about how to proceed. However, H.W. should certainly familiarise himself with the idea that if one is topic-banned from an area and then returns, one is expected to change one's behaviour, and not simply continue with the exact same pattern of activity as before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Regarding the Richard Tylman AfD, is there any way to solicit the opinions of uninvolved editors, to prevent the political issues from having any effect? Triplestop x3 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

As you blocked one individual for the topic ban violation, please dont forget to remove his vote on RfD page ; one similar case was already implemented . Cheers, M.K. (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm aware of that; I'm only a bit reluctant to do this because I voted on the AfD myself previously. My block of Pawel was not for this particular edit, but for a whole number of other edits that breached his topic ban in a much more obvious ways; the AfD edit is arguably more borderline and so I'll prefer to not take a stance on whether the vote should be removed at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Perhaps admin who imposed a topic ban, should judge about that vote on RfD? M.K. (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More on Cold Fusion

Please see my comment given here. --GoRight (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Give it up. The community has spoken, this case is closed. And you, with your well-documented history of disruptive wikilawyering, are hardly the best person to convince people of the need to reconsider. Pcarbonn is free to appeal his ban with the Arbcom sub-committee. I plan to close and archive that noticeboard thread fairly soon, so don't waste your breath. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

HELP HELP HELP

Ceha is starting to intimidate me. Please but please keep an eye out so that there will be no problems. Please. (LAz17 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)).

Uhm, he made one single edit asking you about your topic ban. Hardly a reason for drama. Nevertheless, I have commented there, hopefully to clarify things and help avoid escalation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Second question. How on earth is adding demographic data part of the topic ban? In no way is that related to cartography. I just transfered census data onto the page. There is absolutely nothing controversial there. I have regularily been doing this on many municipalities thoughout the republics of the former yugoslavia and nobody ever had an issue with it. (LAz17 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)).