This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Koavf (talk | contribs) at 23:06, 6 February 2010 (→Page moves). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:06, 6 February 2010 by Koavf (talk | contribs) (→Page moves)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 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—
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
Take a look
Please take a look at my most recent edit in 2004 South Ossetia clashes and see if it is referenced enough. Reenem.
Adminship
Hello. Sorry to bother you, but I am currently applying for adminship. Any tips or advice on how to be a good aministrator would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Reenem (talk)
Could I ask you a favour?
Could you kindly ask a very grateful editor which promised you something – not to remove referenced text and provide more relevant comments to the edits . Thanks
- while source cited at 8-9 row from a top clearly have “Russians” Hungarians and Jewery – same text appeared at book with ISBN 966-02-2535-0 published by Institute of History National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine at p.576
- while Time magazine ref i clearly have such string – at same time returned – non existed blog and same type “opinions” given as WP:V and WP:RS
Same style of edits comments also here
- It’s really not necessary to replace one not sourced string of text with another.
It’s really sad to note that is exactly in a same way as did one of the WP:EEML list member - see ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Time magazine citation is in fact _cherrypicked_ nonsense, because it is standard scholarship that Bandera spent the War as a concentration camp inmate.-Galassi (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The ref #2 mentions Poles only in the given context. JoOdoe, You are welcome to discuss this on the appropriate talk page.-Galassi (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The source for the last 2 is simply unreliable and self-contadictory, claiming that unic committed atrocities BEFORE it was ever in existence.
- The ref #2 mentions Poles only in the given context. JoOdoe, You are welcome to discuss this on the appropriate talk page.-Galassi (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Time magazine citation is in fact _cherrypicked_ nonsense, because it is standard scholarship that Bandera spent the War as a concentration camp inmate.-Galassi (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
USer JoOdoe has a long history of tendentious anti-Ukrainian editing, in staggering amounts on hte Ru-Wiki.-Galassi (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- And as I see now has an indefinite block on ruwiki.-Galassi (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Could you also kindly remind to editor about WP:V and WP:RS policy - and the fact that the WP article based on secondary RS but not on personal opinioins of the editors. So before to reach a conclusion - fact _cherrypicked_ nonsense editor should find a RS (high grade I think) which clearly indicate that the Time magazine information (as Also data of the Institute of History National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine ) is "cherrypicked_ nonsense" - while per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE this text should be included - together with claims that Bandera spent the 1939-1945 as a concentration camp inmate.
- Also please advice an editor not to self nominate State Memorial Complex "Khatyn" nor Auschwitz-Birkenau as unreliable and self-contadictory.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also please advice editor that WP is not right place to illustrate a WP:POINT - - it's really not necessary to create a one string of text article which does not proved by reference added. Even more - it ref stated "Ukrainian" - no ground exist to translate such as "Russian" ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- However - in regards to - see - I can see "“Moscow”, Poles , Hungarians and Jewery - have you? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
1RR restriction and self-revert promise
- Could you remind an editor about promises – not to remove tag before solving reliability issue at talk page – it also included the changing ref from the online link of the concerned source to offline (as in first ref provided). Thanks
- Could you also advice editor to avoid “wholesale” revert and changing the source text meaning
Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am careful with my 1-R deal. The "dubious" tag was removed as a doubtful tertiary source was replaced by the reliable secondary one from which it quotes.-Galassi (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was unable to find referenced text in source provided - could you specify a page number please. I still quess when M.Logusz "The Waffen-SS 14th Grenadier Division, 1943-1945". became WP:RS - see that comment from . Even more strange - which relation The Waffen-SS 14th Grenadier Division, 1943-1945 has to Bandera bio???Jo0doe (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Picture Gallery
- I guess if someone found the photo ] of W. Averell Harriman as a person belonging to Nazi-Soviet background - it would be not so good.
Even more if some of 1956 DDR workers found themselves a responcible for 1940 inspection. Same approach also can be found in all "Nazi-Soviet" topic edited by creator of the article. Some data indeed really fun - like Basis Nord - German naval base which never exist nor seen any german Navy ships (as source used by editor clearly indicate) :) Thanks. Does it would be good to use Pact of Steel style in related artilce? Your opinion appreciated. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Help needed
...with a serious matter. User:Lvivske (]) deletes without discussion all data pertaining to Jewish history in the towns in Western Ukraine. He has previously demonstrated a tendency toward historical revisionism re jews, so it is not easy to assume goodfaith. Your opinion? -Galassi (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Gnat image
I can't actually find very many copes of the image online. Tineye says it's too simple to search for and the two people I've seen use it as an avatar are not currently using it. Nevertheless, there are some hits on a Google search for "crawling bug avatar", such as this one. AS for the copyright status: honestly I hadn't even thought about whether something like that might be copyrighted; if it's possible, then I would have no objection to deletion. Its likely that Electric mocha chinchilla isnt the original author, and unprovable even if he is. -- Soap /Contributions 22:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair use photos
Thanks for your constructive answer to my question on the Files for Deletion page ie:Salinger:
Response: images where no commercial interests are at stake would be, for instance photographs that the subject himself had used for promotional purposes during their life (e.g. photos on the subject's own webpage etc.) Also, images where such interests were explicitly waived, e.g. through a "permission for non-commercial use" or "permission for use on wikipedia".
I am particularly interested in Damien's response to the question, however, because he has also nominated files that I uploaded for deletion. I have been following the Salinger thread because I was actually shocked to see it nominated for deletion, etc. Anyway, the images that concern me are of David Carradine and after reading your response I took a look at his official website and found that most of the images there are being offered for sale as autographed prints, so it would appear that they have commercial value to someone. It seems to me that screen shots from his movies and television, and photos that have been circulated in newspapers and magazines would have less commercial value than the ones on the website. It also seems to me that if interests had been waived, there would not be a need for a fair use rationale to begin with. This whole fair use concept is really hard to grasp and looking at its history, it has been for a really long time. If you are quite knowledgeable about the topic I am eager to learn more about it. Also, how do you get your talk page semi-protected? I would love to do that due to a recent attack.Thanks--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
File:Woodward pic biloxi oyster warf.jpg
Future, what the heck am I to do with this one? I'm confused with the conversation that you and Angus were having. I can't work out now whether you think it should be kept, or whether it should be deleted. Can you clarify your thoughts at the AFD? I'd like to get this one closed to clear the backlog. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, yeah, it was a bit confusing. My summary is this: I demonstrated that based on the creation and publication history it could in priciple still be in copyright, if the formalities of registering and renewal were done, while Angus made a plausible case that it seems they in fact weren't, so an assumption of PD seems reasonable. It might also be added that even if it turns out to be copyrighted, we could make a good fair-use case for at least one or two of those paintings, if not for all of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Sock
2007apm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reminds me very much of User:EmpMac . An ultranationalist Albanian account with a fascination for sexual acts. Does it pass WP:DUCK or should I file an SPI? Regards, Athenean (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm still missing one or two other signature features of Emperordarius, so I'm not yet entirely sure. Maybe an SPI/CU case would be suitable – there's still an old apparent Emperordarius IP around that has been active recently, so maybe CU could bring something up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Bulgaria
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise,
Can you tell me which other country article lede includes the detailed geographic information that you insist stays in the Bulgaria lede? Is this the norm? Second, did you have a look at the England lede, or for example the Korea lede which include information about their ancient heritage? If you consider this to be PEACOCK, what do you think about the Greece article lede, wherein it states, "Modern Greece traces its roots to the civilization of ancient Greece, generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization. As such, it is the birthplace of democracy, Western philosophy, the Olympic Games, Western literature and historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, and Western drama, including both tragedy and comedy"?
As per Misplaced Pages rules, if it is not OK for one country to include information about its ancient heritage in its lede, than it certainly would mean that the same rules would have to be applied to the aforementioned countries (and many others), including Greece. If you feel that you can not look upon this issue from a more neutral perspective, than I will apply your standards and make necessary changes in the Greek article. If need be I will start a new discussion in WP to highlight what I believe is solid empirical evidence that there are double standards applied to different country articles. I simply can not stand by when I see the utilization of two sets of rules (unreflective of the singular guidelines of Misplaced Pages), especially (as in the case(s) that I am most familiar with) between Bulgarian and Greek editors.--Monshuai (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Confused
Hi again Futperf. I've been watching the File:JD Salinger.jpg debate for some time and am confused by your latest edit regarding the copyright renewal. From what I can see the first publication was in his iconic book in 1951 (inside the back cover). Copyright on this book was renewed (in 1978 I think—in fact this book is used as an example of copyright renewal in a few places) so from this I presume that the image is also still (c). Do I have the wrong end of the stick here ? - Peripitus (Talk) 08:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dang. I had gone by what Ruhrfisch had been saying some paragraphs down from mine, about having searched that database. Didn't know about that book publication. Could you perhaps add this piece of information to Ruhrfisch's statement? If you already mentioned it elsewhere in that debate, I may easily have overlooked it; it's such a huge mess now I couldn't take in all the statements. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask a favor?
Hi!
I think you are more than aware that there has been a wikiHunt for images recently, and I feel that I have been victimized. I would like to ask you a favor. I have been working on the Linda McMahon page, and I want to bring back a few images to enhance readability and illustrate main points.
File:Todayshow.jpg was a screenshot of a television show, and if you could, would you help me add some rationale so that the administrators don't delete it again?
Thank you so much! --Screwball23 talk 03:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case
Hi Future Perfect: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the discussions leading up to this ArbCom case and presented evidence you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Loosmark
Hi. On 17 November you placed Loosmark under the following restriction:
- 1R/24h on any page, with the following additional restrictions:
- You must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary.
- You may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion.
Today in the discussion page for Frédéric Chopin Loosmark edited the title of a section I had created (diff here ). I reverted the title on the basis that the wording was correct and that Loosmark has no right to edit my posts, I also left a message stating that Loosmark should not edit my posts. Loosmark promptly (as in within seven minutes) reverted my change (diff here ).
In my opinion (not that my opinion is worth anything), Loosmark has broken both elements of the third restriction you placed him under: he has not provided any explanation for his revert on the talk page and he did not wait three hours to allow time for discussion. Do you think that he has broken the restrictions he was placed under?Varsovian (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have explained yesterday why I have changed the title, it is very insulting to the great composer as noted by another user on that talk. Also I have not reverted you more than 1 time. Dr. Loosmark 10:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- My reading of the restriction is that you are required to first provide an explanation on the talk page for the revert and then wait three hours to allow time for discussion. Only then may you revert. Please provide me with diffs showing where and at what time you posted on the talk page providing an explanation for the revert. I note you have not joined in the discussion I started on the talk page attempting to find a consensus name for the section.Varsovian (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes if I edit the main page, however this was a talk page title. Also this might be technicality but I think I have not even reverted you, I have only changed the insulting title. Had I really reverted you than the whole post you wrote would have been "undone" which is not the case. Dr. Loosmark 10:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lads, is there remotely any point whatsoever in your having this discussion? Nothing of any importance has happened; just shake virtual hands and forget the whole thing.--Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- fine. virtual handshake Varsovian. Dr. Loosmark 10:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lads, is there remotely any point whatsoever in your having this discussion? Nothing of any importance has happened; just shake virtual hands and forget the whole thing.--Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes if I edit the main page, however this was a talk page title. Also this might be technicality but I think I have not even reverted you, I have only changed the insulting title. Had I really reverted you than the whole post you wrote would have been "undone" which is not the case. Dr. Loosmark 10:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- My reading of the restriction is that you are required to first provide an explanation on the talk page for the revert and then wait three hours to allow time for discussion. Only then may you revert. Please provide me with diffs showing where and at what time you posted on the talk page providing an explanation for the revert. I note you have not joined in the discussion I started on the talk page attempting to find a consensus name for the section.Varsovian (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sebastokrator
Hello! You are right, he doesn't use this exact word. Consequently I changed it back to your term. Thanks for the correction! :) Constantine ✍ 17:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, of course I don't mind any corrections, as long as the phrasing makes clear that the compound was created by essentially fusing two pre-existing "imperial" titles. FYI, the ODB uses the term "combination". Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
HistoricWarrior and South Ossetia
Just thought you might want to know- you're being accused by HistoricWarrior of bringing "terror to the article" along with what appears to be a thinly veiled accusation of meatpuppetry, in the I had left the article to others close to a month ago, yet apparently I warrant his ire. FluffyPug (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Liancourt Rocks and User:Chokokokoa
Since you're the governing admin for Liancourt Rocks, I'm reporting the blatant violation by Chokokokoa (talk · contribs) in regards to the naming order and edit summary. --Caspian blue 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Page moves
Consensus There is consensus at WP:DASH and several discussions of bilateral pages on several occasions. Note that literally hundreds of pages are in the form "X–Y relations" and WP:DASH is a long-standing guideline. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Consistency I don't really care if the pages are at "Greco-X relations" or "Greece–X relations"; all I'm trying to do is bring some consistency to the haphazard way that they are named, including the use of ndashes where appropriate. There should not be a page named "Finland-Greece relations" period and that is irrespective of the discussion on the matter that you showed me. (I had not seen it before, but several prior to it.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)