Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:04, 28 July 2010

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, EllsworthSK, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

PAK-FA images

The image you recenty restored to the PAK-FA article is clearly marked as an un-free image used under fair-use rules. Because another image exists that claims to be a free image, the fair-use image is ineligable for fair use. Nothing needs to be "decided", as the rules on fair use are clear. Whether or not the image claiming to be a free one is actually copyright-free is another question, but as long as it exists as a free image, no fair use images can be used. Also, only one fair use iamge can be used to illustrate the same aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for exaplnation but than I have to wonder on what basis do you suppose that the particular free imagi which you are mentioning is free considering that it was copied from here ] and the license was stolen. One way or another, if the image is not free I have to wonder why administrators have not deleted it, although it is already marked and it is used in other wikipedia articles too. And the last thing - if only one fair image can be used to illustrate same aircraft that how come that every single article about some fighter has more than one free images. Maybe I´m messing free and un-free imagine, or I just do not understand - but to best of my knowledge the pictures which are free to reproduce, like those whose author gave the permission for non-commercial use are considered to be free. --EllsworthSK (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that i said the image "claims" to be free, as I do not know either way. If the image is not free, and you have proof of that, then you need to present it on Wiki Commons. The image can then be reviewed for deletion. If it is deleted, then we can add ONE iamge to the article as fair-use. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PAK FA edits

Please do not let being a "fan" of this plane get in the way of the facts. The edits you made are uncorrect and unconstructive. Please let us keep that page factual, the PAK FA is fourth gen ++ at most due to its massive radar cross section. Comparing it to the Eurofighter is very fair as it has the same sort of characteristics: a.) Both supercruise b.) Both have comparable RCS c.) Both are 4+ gen fighters d.) Both have same flight performance.

So please stop your vandalism.

1. If you want to write me anything, please sign yourself.

2. It was reported gazillion times that the aircraft is 5th generation fighter, therefore your edition can be considered as vandalism and fanboysim.

3. RCS of PAK FA not known and please do not go with me with that business standart non-sense. All we know is that it should be comparable to F-22 Raptor.

4. Flight performance of final product are not known. Same goes for prototype.

So, please, stop your vandalism. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1.) Ok 2.) Wrong. Those sources know nothing or are fear mongering russian fanboys paid by Putin to promote russia on the net. 3.) Yes it is known. Its cosiderably larger than 0.5m^2 as revealed by the IAF 4.) Yes it is. Just because you dont know.

Your aggressive behaviour wont be tolerated any more. I have reported this to wikipedia for vandalism 81.153.57.68 (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

2, Good that you know everything than.

3, Give source

4, Give source

Report whatever you want, I couldn´t care less. But do not be surprised if nothing will come from it. --EllsworthSK (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to cut out your vandalism bs? 81.153.58.103 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you insist than - NO.

PS: My name isn´t Ivan, but Oliver. Please to meet you. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your vandalism. Please dont do it again. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a free online open encyclopedia. Not your personal propaganda tool. So please im asking you nicely. No trolling or vandalism. Please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.72.2 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, boy. You just don´t get it, do you? --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your note on my talk page. Please note that I am always very careful to not break the 3RR rule. Next time spare the messages of these sort for those who are less familiar with it than me. However it is important to note that you followed me to that article without having edited before. This is not accepted under WP rules (see: Wikihounding). --Nmate (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you are not aware and alas if you have that feeling I suggest you to bring this to attention of administrators. Now, is that it or have you anything else to say? --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:HA again. No, I can't report you right away because it needs to be proven by more and more proofs. However, such offence may draw serious consequences. Do not follow me around.--Nmate (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have anything useful to say, say it because as of now you were unable to do so. Your gibberish talks about some following or harrasement are beyond ridiculous and you know it, if you have some problems with me you know what you have to do (or so do you claim). Until than try not spamming my talk page. Thanks --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Slovakization

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Slovakization. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Slovakization (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Hungarian names from the infobox

Hi, I see you delete Hungarian names from the infobox at places in Slovakia. Pleae stop doing it as the Hungarian names may be in the infobox at places which have a majority or strong minority Hungarian population. Here are two recent neutal editor opinion /admin decison on a similar issue with respect to Romania. (Mediation Cabal initiated by Iadrian yu and (decision by admin Myroots). I would not like an edit conflict or incident process, so please adhere to consensus. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunatelly both your links are missing the piece of information you´re talking about. Nevertheless I suggest you to re-check the infobox of the cities because you´re clearly missing the point which I wanted to make. To the name sections belongs only the official name, there is no another, there are not two official names for one city - that belongs to other name section what is below it. I have no problem if you add Hungarian name to the other name section in the cities which have at least 20 percent of Hungarian population (what bytheway many of edited does not have) but do it at least properly, not like you did with that infobox. --EllsworthSK (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, If you are not against Hungarian names appearing in the infobox, then instead of deletion, modify the style. My personal opinion is that the geobox which is used with Slovakian settlements makes an eyesore with alternative names. If you put the names to native names, it appears in brackets. As other names, its an eyesore. In Western-European articles, the result is as currently shown in Komarno aricles. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason is simple - I didn´t have to, the place where you added the minority name is the wrong one, all I did was removing it but ok, I´ll do the job and put them to the places wheer they belong just as in case of Komárno. --EllsworthSK (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Civic Conservative Party

You've written in your reversion summaries that the seats won by the OKS candidates on the Most-Hid list 'belong to Most-Hid', and compared it to SaS, but I'm not aware of any members on the SaS list causing as much coverage or interest as the four OKS members elected for Most-Hid. Yes, electoral alliances wherein two parties are listed together on the ballot paper, or members on a list are differentiated on the ballot paper, are illegal - which is why they didn't do that.

There is debate over whether the four OKS members will form a common caucus with Most-Hid (if that's been resolved, please let me know, and that would clear the issue), and the party has had to make a separate commitment that its members will support the government. For purposes of the election, it, of course, was unequivocally a Most-Hid list (hence this edit), despite having separate manifestos, but after the election, they are separate parties, and their MPs don't belong to any other party. Bastin 17:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, to make it short - what I ment by SaS are the Ordinary people which are in exactly same position as 4 members of OKS in Most-Híd. Secondly those members already declared that they will respect the new-born coalition and its decision and as they were on candidate of Most-Híd and not OKS we have to include them with the rest of the MP´s of Most-Híd. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they've committed to join the government, as I said. But, as far as I know, they have not committed to join a common parliamentary group with Most-Hid. That is surely a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of being considered a Most-Hid MP. Bastin 22:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How come? By letting their names beeing put on candidate of Most-Híd they agreed on entering the same political franction as rest of their colleagues in Most-Híd. Also they were elected as representatives of Most-Híd, not OKS where we could see the support of voters in 2006. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And here´s something official - according to main page of national council of slovak republic Peter Zajac, Ondrej Dostál, František Šebej and Peter Osuský are listed as MPs of Most-Híd. --EllsworthSK (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nmate is back on Kosice: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.201.174 (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, that´s a blast from the past. And here was I thinking that he finally let that go... --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at John Hunyadi

Could we please have some discussion of the tags, rather than just reverting? Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD Anti-Hungarian sentiment

Maybe is this interesting for you --Yopie (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)