86.182.255.19 (talk) |
86.182.255.19 (talk) No edit summary |
||
Line 420: | Line 420: | ||
:When I log on I have message from Marek69 about "unconstructive edits". I have never made "unconstructive edits" !!!! [[Special:Contributions/86.182.255.19|86.182.255.19]] ([[User talk:86.182.255.19|talk]]) 15:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC) |
:When I log on I have message from Marek69 about "unconstructive edits". I have never made "unconstructive edits" !!!! [[Special:Contributions/86.182.255.19|86.182.255.19]] ([[User talk:86.182.255.19|talk]]) 15:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
== Help! == |
|||
Hi Marek69. I'm in a situation of trouble...people telling me that I've broken copyright (even copying withing wikipedia). I just need to get some things straight! |
|||
* Firstly what do you have to do to attribute (I read the page, but it gave me wikipedia creep; please simplify it)? |
|||
* What do you do if you've done edits way in the past in which you've copied from other wiki articles without attribution (I only discovered it relatively recently)? |
|||
* Can you copy and paste info from other articles that you've written yourself? |
|||
Please make this clear to me. I've been blocked in the past for a misunderstanding, and I don't want to get blocked again! |
|||
⚫ |
Revision as of 15:35, 22 February 2010
Search archives: |
Typo on "Now"
Could you throw me a few examples of the false positives on "now". I'd like to take a crack at fixing it. Shadowjams (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Shadowjams, thank you for your message.
- The main problem I came across with this one was when running spell-checks on Eastern-European town/city/village articles. A frequent word which triggered the spell-check was nowe (Polish/Slovak for 'new').
- I know that foreign words create a problem with spell-checking and we can't fix every case, but this one seems to be occurring very frequently in the areas I've been working.
- I wasn't sure how to exclude this particular case - is this possible just to exclude the word 'nowe'?
- Thank you for taking an interest in this.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 01:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. Right now it looks like this: find="\b(N|n)(?:ow[es]|wo)\b" replace="$1ow". If it's just "nowe" we could remove the e from the brackets. If catching "nowes" is important, but avoiding "nowe" is too, then this could work: find="\b(N|n)(?:owe?s|wo)\b".
- As a side note, the (?: idiom seems to be common on AWB/T but I don't know why. It just designates a noncapturing group so you don't have to readjust the $1 numbering, which isn't an issue most places where it's used. Go figure.
- Let me know if you think that might fix it. I'll test it later if I get the time. Shadowjams (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Another possibility, to actually catch misspellings of now as "nowe", would be to try to exclude sentences that have accented characters, things like "Ś", in them. That might knock down the false positives. We could also exclude the capitalized ones that use that one.
- Doing the accent character avoidance is probably too verbose for AWB/T, and would tie up too much processor to be used widespread, but if you wanted to use it on your own Find/Replace patterns it might work. Making it could be a bit of a pain, so before I try to do one, let me know if you think that either of those mechanisms would avoid most of the false positives you've seen. Shadowjams (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fast replies, Shadowjams.
- I think that just removing 'nowe' would be of great benefit. I have no idea if 'nowes' is a frequent typo. There was obviously some reason for adding it to the list in the first place.
- The word 'nowe' often appears in text on its own within English text, usually as part of a place or landmark name, rather than part of a line of foreign text.
- I think just removing 'nowe' from the list would be the simplest solution.
- If you are able to this, I would be very grateful.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
hello thanks for the welcome! Ceroman (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
About Nativity church
Hi. Im glad you translated (or created) the page about "Adormirea Maicii Domnului" church in Causeni...in english. The name of the church translated in english is Assumption of Mary, or something like that. Nativity church maybe in the case of Nasterea Domnului, but not this case. "Dedicated to jesus" is another mistake. So please correct this things. Best wishes. Dan.chent (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Dan.chent, thank you for your message. Could you please show me which page you are referring to.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Marek. This is the page: Nativity Church, Căuşeni.Dan.chent (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Violating links
This link is to saojoaodepernambuco.com has changed and now has only a sponsored ads. Don know how edit since I dont see the editing page for Referências at http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goiana
I have reason to believe that some of the refernces at Wikipedia is abused by a network of websites, belong to one person.
These two is very similar in content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_football_league_system http://www.natal-brazil.com/communities/football-brazil.html I checked natal-brazil.com and some of the content is copied from other wbesites. The above link even had a url from Wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_in_Brazil (could not edit and remove)
The websites that are joined in a network and many of them has references in Wikipedia(Example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natal,_Rio_Grande_do_Norte) : viagemdeferias.com visitfortaleza.com aboutbrasilia.com natal-brazil.com aboutsaopaulo.com v-brazil.com joao-pessoa.com www.recifeguide.com
The content is not unique on some pages and filled with Google ads.
Another example: The text on recifeguide.com is not unique, I think the material is copied as well, compare "The History of Recife and Pernambuco is unique" in Google: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:-8-nWtmn3zEJ:www.diveglobal.com/explore_destinations/divertales/feb2006.asp+%22The+History+of+Recife+and+Pernambuco+is+unique%22&cd=3&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se
Regards
Sammyname Sammyname (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyname (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Sammyname. Thank you for your message.
- If these links you are referring to are not under the References section, then they're likely to be within the text of the article.
- If you make a note of the number of the reference, then look where that same number shows up in the article.
- i.e The article text will look like this.[3]
References
- 1. Good Reference
- 2. Good Reference
- 3. Bad Reference
- When you find the place the bad reference is in the text (e.g. the number 3 - it will probably have <ref> before it and </ref> after it) you will be able to remove it.
- I hope this helps.
- Please come back if you need more help.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
First personal problems with IP editors
Salutings Marek69, for the second time a paragraph of mine has been deleted in the Leipzig#Sport section by an IP editor. Both times I reverted this and now I am wondering what to do the next time this happens. I already placed a section on the related talk page expressing my opinion. But I find it hard to communicate with editors who do not care for explaining their reasons. So what are my options? Thanks for Your time. Greetings Arrmaniac (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Arrmaniac, in both these cases the whole paragraph was deleted without any discussion or explanation.
- This type of edit can be treated as 'unexplained removal of cited content'
- If it happens again you can simply revert using the above edit summary. Also you should leave a message on the IP editors talk page. If they give no explanation and repeat the same section blanking, then you can treat it as disruptive editing and use the appropriate warning. Usually this will do the trick.
- Please let me know if you have any more problems with this.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 15:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Carpe Diem
Hi there marek. How come my good faith edit was reverted by you? I'd certainly consider that including "Seize the Day (novel)" disambig would be just as relevant to the top of the main page of the Carpe Diem article just as relevant as the "Seize the Day (song)", if not more so.
I tried to add both the song and the novel to the top of Carpe Diem but was unable to get the formatting correct to include both, so I moved both to the disambig page, to be fair. It would seem either both should be included or neither. Please assist?! Thanks again. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I reverted this version back to this version with the edit summary of Previous format was better.
- This was for the simple reason that using the template {{Redirect|Seize the day}} is better formatting than manually writing ''"Seize the Day" redirects here. ''
- This had nothing to do with whether "Seize the Day (novel)" is as relevant as "Seize the Day (song)".
- I hope this answers your question
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 18:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point. But since there are two "Seize the Day" works here (the song and the novel), how can Carpe Diem be formatted to either include both or neither on it's front page? Why should the song get top billing? (Actually, why should either get top billing? It's only a redirect, after all.) But if anything, I believe the song should take a backseat as the novel is unquestionably more notable. Please forgive my lack on knowledge about proper formatting; any advice you can give would help. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- So. Any ideas? Perhaps removing the redirect altogether and simply leaving the disambig? If I don't hear back on your thoughts in the next few days that is the action I will assume to be best. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've already removed the {{Redirect}} template. It seems unnecessary to me. If you disagree you may replace it with both song and novel if you wish. I'm not particularly fussed on this one.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 23:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to restore them both to the page, if only because the redirect is to "Carpe Diem" and the song and the novel are both titled "Seize the Day"...wouldn't want anybody to miss either. Thanks again for being willing to see this POV. You're awesome. :o) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- No Problem -- Marek.69 talk 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- So. Any ideas? Perhaps removing the redirect altogether and simply leaving the disambig? If I don't hear back on your thoughts in the next few days that is the action I will assume to be best. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello!!
Thank you for your welcome note! I hope my contributions are okay for you ;-).
Greetings from Hamburg, Germany ExcelsiorHH ExcelsiorHH (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi ExcelsiorHH, thank you for your message. I hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia :-)
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I sometimes enjoy it far too much and forget everything else around me... ExcelsiorHH (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- :-) OK just don't enjoy it too much, too often then. Regards -- Marek.69 talk 23:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ze'ev Tzahor Auschwitz lie
[[1]] Potrzebuje poparcia Cautious (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome!
Well, considering I'm about three times as long here than you, I guess I should be the one to welcome you as newbie ... ;-) -Caballito (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well thank you for the welcome then, Caballito :-) Cheers! -- the newbie talk 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello
Thank you for welcome ! I make in the majority a translation from English and Turkish Wikipedia to Polish Wikipedia and it is my main target now. I am in Ankara currently, so if you some suggestion for help in developing Wikipedia connected with this place give me cue, please. You can see more information about me on my polish account - [Mcdrwal in polish]
Best regrades, Mcdrwal (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Initial capital in piped links
(This text replaces what I originally wrote, which was probably not correct)
Re your edit to European Union on 3 Feb and others: is there any reason that I don't know for explicitly replacing initial capitals in piped links with lower case? I had thought that this caused an unnecessary redirection, but on checking it seems that the case of the first letter (only) is ignored and does not cause any overhead. My general practice is to use the title of an article exactly in the first part of the pipe (specifically, with initial capital e.g.
"... an [[Autonomous area|autonomous province]] ", not
"... is an [[autonomous area|autonomous province]] ". Is there any general recommendation you know of, or are they equally acceptable? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Pol098, thank you for your message.
- You are probably right, these piped links should remain with first letter in uppercase. That seems logical to me.
- But if, as you say, the case of the first letter (only) is ignored, it would then seem that it makes no difference at all(?)
- Regarding my edits, this change happens automatically when making other changes when using some of Dispenser's tools, such as Dab solver, Checklinks & Reflinks.
- I was going to ask user Dispenser for the reasoning behind this, but found that someone already had asked this question (in a manner)
- Personally, it makes little difference to me, I just happen to use Dispenser's tools quite frequently as I find them useful and these changes come with the package.
- I hope this answers your question :-)
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. You say "I hope this answers your question": to be pedantic, not quite; I would take the attitude that the change of case is incorrect, and it's up to you not to use a tool that actually introduces error into the articles you edit. Anyway, if I repair your car and the wheels fall off, I now know that you will be satisfied if I say that my nut tightener actually tightens nuts to the standard its manufacturer intended, nothing to do with me.
I've left a comment to Dispenser; the existing discussion on case changing was perhaps debatable, this one is clearcut. Very confusing; the last time I reported incorrect changes due to the use of a template I was told that these changes were down to the user, not the template! (Obviously that was true, and this case is different; just confusing.) Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. You say "I hope this answers your question": to be pedantic, not quite; I would take the attitude that the change of case is incorrect, and it's up to you not to use a tool that actually introduces error into the articles you edit. Anyway, if I repair your car and the wheels fall off, I now know that you will be satisfied if I say that my nut tightener actually tightens nuts to the standard its manufacturer intended, nothing to do with me.
- Hi Pol098, thank you for your message. Don't worry, I don't think you were being pedantic, you're just trying to get your message across.
- Please excuse my confusion, I didn't realise that these edits were wrong as such, and would be introducing errors into the edited articles. I thought what you were saying above was that the first letter's case would be ignored anyway, and it wouldn't matter.
- Anyhow, I won't argue the point as I strongly suspect you are correct in what you are saying (i.e that there is no point in changing the case needlessly) so I will now be completely suspending my use of Dispenser's tools until this matter is clarified.
- I thank you for bringing this to my attention, as it was never my intention to deliberately introduce errors into the encyclopaedia.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response again. Like most things in Wikipedia it's probably largely a matter of opinion; my opinion is that the "correct" way to do things is to pipe the title of an article exactly (i.e, with leading capital), and that anything else is, strictly speaking, incorrect. When I formed this opinion I thought that this would be more efficient than starting with a lower-case letter, but I think I was wrong on that issue. So my opinion is that lower-case is incorrect, but that it does not actually cause inefficiency. I've never heard of anyone saying that the initial letter in a piped quote should be lower-case (but I haven't looked...), so I don't think there's any controversy here. This is purely a matter of how it looks, apparently with no impact on performance. This is pretty pedantic, but I don't mind being pedantic here - if it's appropriate to be pedantic anywhere, an encylopaedia is the place! Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In case you or anyone is interested: I wrote about this on the Talk page of Dispenser, who made Reflist and other tools; his position is that removal of initial capitals is by design and will stay. At the time of writing there's one additional comment by someone who agrees with me and asks if there is a guideline covering this issue. Pol098 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the update Pol098.
- I would just like to clarify some of my previous comments.
- I said this change happens automatically when making other changes when using some of Dispenser's tools.
- In fact the changes only happen automatically when using Reflinks. With the other tools Dab solver & Checklinks, you have a checkbox you can tick to 'apply common fixes' or an option to run reflinks.py, in both cases optional.
- I will wait and see the results of the discussion before I return to using Reflinks, in order to avoid upsetting any other editors
- Thank you for your comments on this subject.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Brazil, Introduction
Hi Marek69,
Just a brief note. The correct translation of "Republica Federativa do Brasil" in English is "Federal Republic of Brazil" not "Federative Republic of Brazil." There is no such word as "federative" in English (see: Webster's Dictionary of the American Language or any other English dictionary) and Larousse, Concise Dictionary of English/Portugese, p. 171 cites "federativa" as "federalist." The best translation to conform to good English usage and to render the correct meaning of the Portugese is "Federal Republic of Brazil." It is a good idea to start the article on Brazil with the correct name of the country. Please correct. (And yes, I speak Portugese and my wife is Brazilian and agrees with this point.) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrisles (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Harrisles, I have found many instances in different dictionaries of the word 'Federative' being in the dictionary.
- Here are the first three instances I found: [2], [3] and [4]
- The text on the Brazil article referring to Federative Republic of Brazil is referenced to The Brazilian Government official website which clearly also says Federative.
- Regards -- Marek.69 talk 23:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a long time since we've talked, but i need to ask a q.
Hi Marek. I need to contact you for something. I was wondering, can info from wikitravel be copy-pasted? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Theologia, When you contribute to Wikipedia, you irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Techncially, under these licences you shouldn't copy-paste large sections of one Wikipedia article into another as it contravenes the rules on Attribution, i.e. the section you've copied is likely to have a different set of authors, to the article your pasting into. So you shouldn't copy-paste within Wikipedia, you should treat the text like any other copyrighted text and paraphrase it.
- Wikitravel is not technically part of Wikipedia, it uses similar CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensing and may be interpreted differently.
- In practice, it would be best should treat Wikitravel like any other external site; you could probably get away with copy-pasting one or two lines maximum (to be safe), but it would still be a good idea to put this text into your own words.
- I hope this answers your question.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- So, what would happen if you just copypasted huge chunks? Would you be accused of copyright infrangment. What if you copy large chunks but change the wording slightly i.e.
- On wikitravel it says: "Prague is a beautiful city with many sights and has a large medieval area"
- you then copy it, and say: "Prague is an attractive metropolis with many sights and has a great central area dating from the middle ages"
- reply--Theologiae (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- The one line you quote, would probably be acceptable, if you just used that line of text or maybe one more.
- If you say took a whole paragraph, say 10 lines and just changed the odd word using a thesaurus or similar method, it would not be acceptable. You would have to re-write the paragraph (or the parts you wish to use) in your own words.
- The exception, of course would be public domain or copyright free texts, which are allowed (but it is still not a good idea to copy paste these either).
- For more information you could look at these articles:
- I hope this helps Marek.69 talk 22:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- reply--Theologiae (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Oxford flag size
Bit puzzled by this edit ... flag size, if not blank, should be an integer followed by the letters "px" - the default is 100px. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, I'm a bit puzzled as well. Someone has (incorrectly) added 7 FT here, which AWB has taken for 7 ft and applied the convert template to show the corresponding length in metres. The edit would have been correct if it hadn't been in the wrong place! I should have noticed it at the time.
- Anyway, I'm sorry it was a mistake. Thanks for fixing it and letting me know, Redrose64 :-) Marek.69 talk 14:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
hello
hi Marek i just read on Wikipedia about Cyprus signing joining the schengen zone on the 26 march 2010.i will be much grateful if you let me on your source of information.thanks i await your reply.thanks sinbad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinbadgh (talk • contribs) 13:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Sinbadgh, thank you for your message. I've looked through the Schengen Area article and there doesn't appear to be one.
- I've also done a quick Google on it, and can only find references in the negative, ie Cyprus will not be integrated into the Schengen Area until at least March 2010.
- I'll keep looking and let you know when I find something.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 03:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome
Hello! And thank You for welcomming me into the Wiki-world.
// Mr Per Sanderford, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringence (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Per, thank you for your message. I hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia.
- Please let me know if there is anything I can help you with.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
a matter of license for text I wrote
Hi On the page about Seydisfjordur is a text tha I wrote and did ad to the wikipedia. I also gave the east.is a permission to use the text. So my question is how do I prove to you that I'm the author of the text? Adalheidur Borgthorsdottir id, number 010758-6619 Ferdamenning (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Adalheidur, thank you for your message.
- Only text that is licensed compatibly with the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) or in the public domain can be freely copied onto Wikipedia. (If copyright of the previously published text belongs exclusively to you, it must also be licensed under Gnu Free Documentation License.)
- Basically you need to release the text on your website into the public domain or under compatable licenses to Wikipedia, i.e. Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) (you can find more info from CreativeCommons.Org) and Gnu Free Documentation License. (Gnu.Org)
- You need to state this on your website. When you have done so, you can copy over text.
- You may find the following article helpful; I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?
- The other option you have is to rewrite the text completely, before adding. (Thus avoiding any copyright issues)
- In my opinion it would be better to change the text somewhat, before adding it to Wikipedia, either way.
- I hope this helps. Please come back to me if you require any further assistance.
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome.
Thanks for the welcome. I hope I did the right thing. I'm fairly sure the Parthenon was not built by midgets. A.M. Winship (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi A.M. Winship, thank you for your message. Hmmm...are you sure? I was sure it was.
- No, sorry, I was thinking about Stonehenge. You're right.
- Cheers! -- Marek.69 talk 22:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome response
Thanks for the welcome, Mark. I already have an account, but wikipedia seems to have some trouble in keeping me logged in -- and also asks me to creat another account everytime I try and check other languages, which annoys me, so I just don't log that often.
Still, thank you.187.14.22.127 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Column with too few references
Its a bit silly to have [5] to have colwidth=30 with less than 8 references. — Dispenser 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, Dispenser. It's probably not increase much from 8 either. I've already reverted my edit. :-)
- Cheers! -- Marek.69 talk 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Considering your using AWB you can setup a regex condition like: If contains:
(</ref>.*?){8,}
— Dispenser 16:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)- I could set that up, if I knew a little more about coding (or knew someone who did)...
- Considering your using AWB you can setup a regex condition like: If contains:
- At the moment I have set up a simple find/replace with the 'Replace Special' feature
- i.ei search for: {{reflist}},{{reflist|2}},{{Reflist}} or {{Reflist|2}}
- and replace with: {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}
Nobel Prize, New Section and GA
Hey Marek! First of all, good job on the Nobel Prize! It's a good article now, much thanks to you. However, I would like to talk about the new part you made in the "Emphasis on ..." section. As much as this is an interesting fact about Einstein which not many know I don't really understand why it is there? I don't see the connection between it and the "Emphasis..." thingie. Please explain :)
BR --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Esuzu, thank you for your message. Good news about the Nobel Prize GA
- I wasn't sure which section to put this info in, whether to start a new section, subsection or otherwise
- I eventually settled on the '...discoveries over inventions' section, which seemed most appropriate.
- My reasoning: Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which he devised in 1905, can be effectively treated as an 'unproven invention'
- It wasn't until he made the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect (which proved the Theory) that he was then awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921.
- I think this information is important enough to be included in this article
- It's just the wording or grammar (or something) in this new paragraph is not yet 100% right. I'm not sure if I've explained it all that well. Please feel free to change/improve it.
- Do you think this info should possibly go under another heading? (I'm not sure)
- Regards Marek.69 talk 17:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I will copy this over to the article's talk page for wider discussion. -- Marek.69 talk 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also!
The Original Barnstar | ||
I, Esuzu, hereby give you, Marek69 a barnstar for your hard work on the Nobel Prize article! |
--Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
re: Welcome
Hi, thanks for welcoming me, I hope that I can be a useful wikipedian. I'm looking forward to this. (Alexhobbit (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)).
- Hi Alexhobbit, I'm sure you will be a useful Wikipedian.
- Kind Regards & Happy Wiki-ing! :-) Marek.69 talk 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
AIV report
I'm guessing you didn't mean to report Special:Contributions/76.214.195.253, as they haven't edited since they're last block :). I've blocked the user who the diffs you provided were by (Special:Contributions/70.166.203.30), hope that's what you wanted. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Kingpin, I was in hurry to get rid of this persistent vandal. IP Special:Contributions/76.214.195.253's details were already in the template from last time, when I copied it over. Cheers for noticing and sorting it out :-)
- Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 17:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Adding Notes sections under References
On a number of articles about Swiss Municipalities, you've been adding a "Notes" Sub-Section Header under the "References" Section Header with AWB. Here's a diff if what I'm saying is unclear [6]. There's only the reflist template below the header, so I'm not sure why Notes is being added. Is this something new, or just some thing that you like? Is there a reason to be making these edits? Tobyc75 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
re: Welcome
Hallo, thanks for the warm welcome, I hope I can contribute. I'm looking forward to this. Amnestyman (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
A warning I received. JEDI
Hello, I was digging around in Wikipedia a few minutes ago, when I came across a warning from you dated Oct. 2009 as follows:
October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Oslo, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Marek69 talk 20:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
First of all, I have no idea what you are talking about, I never looked up Oslo let alone made an edit. I realize the IP address is what you are basing your warning on but... I can get a new IP address as many as 20 times a week due to AT&Ts crap DSL "service" here, if it can happen to me, I imagine it happens to many people! Sending a warning to an IP address and it being there since Oct is a bit of an overkill as this means anyone and anyone who receives this IP address is also going to receive the warning. As active as you appear to be in Wikipedia I would think this is not the first time this has come to your attention. The system as it is can cause more than an irritated person such as myself. Let's say for example that I am a regular contributer but do not want to be a registered user (you can pick your own reason for a person not wanting an actual account)then my IP address changes to one attached with a plethora of warnings for being rude lewd and crude in the edits and posts made to Wikipedia... You can see where I'm going with this?
Surely there must be a better method of keeping track of the true offender and not just assigning it to an IP Address that can be picked up by anyone of tens of thousands of AT&T customers?? At the very least you need to address the issue of having these warning expire when a new person receives the IP Address? I know for a fact there is a way to do this as I was a moderator for an RC Truck Enthusiast Forum for 6 years and we did this. (I don't know how but the owner of the site was most adamant that the new "owner" of an IP Address not be saddled with the sins of the previous "owner" of the IP Address).
I just moved to this area and this is another way I know this warning was not aimed at me, but as far as it being an "irrelevant" issue, I disagree completely, it is your responsibility to not be giving MY IP Address any type of warning that does not belong to me.
My first visit to Wikipedia should not be tainted with a warning to someone who had this IP Address 5 months ago. (by the way, some more advice if you are up to it, your warning should warn of nonconstructive not unconstructive edits, unconstructive is not a word)
I'll check back here for your thoughts on this issue (hopefully I can search for the Subject/headline? thus the JEDI)as by morning I will have lost this IP address and be assigned a new one... Very irritating as my Firewall has to be re-set to my new IP Address EVERYDAY! But with my luck, I will be stuck with this one... My point in writing to you!
75.17.193.129 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)NEW IP ADDRESS GUY
- Hi 75.17.193.129, I have the same problem and have already complained. Marek69 has been in trouble for this very same thing already. Warning messages such as this should be deleted after a week to 10 days (by Wikipedia Rules). You should take this matter to WP:ANI and make a formal complaint against Marek. I am in same poition and it is not very nice to be greeted with a Warning when you log on. I too want to edit anonymousely and NOT have an account. DO SOMETHING Marek or your rollback rights could be taken away for abusing the system. 212.87.68.130 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Some IP addresses change all the time, some remain constant for years. If you take over an IP address that has previously been used for vandalism then you are liable to receive messages for the previous user of that IP address - if you don't like that I suggest you create an account. As for changing the rules to require warnings to be removed after a week to ten days, I think that would be unlikely to get consensus unless someone came up with a way to identify when an IP had changed hands. Current policy on removing user warnings is "Old warnings may be archived into page history when they are no longer useful. Give consideration to the IP's contribution history when deciding how long to leave warnings visible. Always note the archiving of old warnings, but be sure to remember that any editor—including anonymous IPs—may remove messages at will from their own talk page." So you are free to delete warnings from IP pages that you take over. But I don't see that Marek69 is doing anything wrong in the way he warned the previous users of your IP addresses for the vandalism that they did. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm also having problems with Marek69. He has given me lots of messages for stuff I havent done!!
- I make constructive edits but I still get messages about pages I havent edited!! I sent Marek69 a message about this, but he told me to open an account. I dont want this! I want to edit anonymously as an IP and I support everyones rights who want to do the same. Why should we be forced to have an account???!!
- Right, I have never edited the pages Marek69 says I did so why should I have to put up with this???. I DEMAND you give me a full apology for all the distress you have caused me and ALL the other people you have harmed. You are acting agaist Wikipedias policy and condemning innocent people to misery. And you dont even have the common decency to reply to us here. You just IGNORE us, yes? This is a breach of WP:CIVIL (do I have to remind you) and by leaving these mesages for innocent newcomers you are breaching WP:BITE. IMO this is enough to get you a disciplinary block or AT LEAST a STRONG Warning from above!!
- I am going to bring this matter up at WP:ANI as suggested as I think you should be disciplined. To stand up for the rights of all the people you have harmed on Wikipedia I am starting a pettition against you. Anyone who has had problems with Marek69 should sign below.
- This is to support the rights of ALL anonymous IP editors and to DEMAND apologies for incorrectly posted messages. Anybody who has had this please sigh below:
- Support the motion. I disagree with Marek69's actions unfairly messaging IP users 92.27.228.98 (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support the motion. I disagree with Marek69's actions unfairly messaging IP users 86.182.255.19 (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
IP 38.116.200.85 got blocked after he got warnings from Marek69 witch he didn't do. Is this fair?? 86.182.255.19 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
New Section at WP:ANI
There is now a New Section at WP:ANI to post any further complaints on this matter. I am sure you'll all agree this is a serious matter and that Marek69 is being stubborn and ignorant by just ignoring it. Please rally together and rise up with me. We can change this thing 92.27.228.98 (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have also had trouble from Marek69. He had given me warnings for edit witch I havent done!!
- When I log on I have message from Marek69 about "unconstructive edits". I have never made "unconstructive edits" !!!! 86.182.255.19 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
BUT IP 38.116.200.85 should get a apology. As I should too [User:Theologiae|Theologiae]] (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)