=Kosovo= |
Andrew Zito (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
::Well, but to give you a counterexample, [[Germany]] is officially called ''Federal Republic of Germany'', but the page is located at [[Germany]], and is called Germany throughout the article, except for the intro and one sentence about the splitting into two germanies. Similarly, [[Switzerland]] would be ''Swiss Confederation'', [[Bulgaria]] would be ''Republic of Bulgaria'', etc. Pick a country, and you'll probably find an official version that differs from the common name. Besides, Kosovo and Metohia sounds to me like there are two provinces, like Texas and California. The poll also seems to be so far unanimous for Kosovo. I hope this won't turn into an edit war. -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] | [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 01:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC) |
::Well, but to give you a counterexample, [[Germany]] is officially called ''Federal Republic of Germany'', but the page is located at [[Germany]], and is called Germany throughout the article, except for the intro and one sentence about the splitting into two germanies. Similarly, [[Switzerland]] would be ''Swiss Confederation'', [[Bulgaria]] would be ''Republic of Bulgaria'', etc. Pick a country, and you'll probably find an official version that differs from the common name. Besides, Kosovo and Metohia sounds to me like there are two provinces, like Texas and California. The poll also seems to be so far unanimous for Kosovo. I hope this won't turn into an edit war. -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] | [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 01:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC) |
||
Bye The experiment failed I will have no part of this stupid bourgeiosie project as the mechanism is completely faulty and I will not be blamed for nor escalate participation as if I were to act as an individualist I have better one than Wikistupidity Wikifailure Wikirudness and Wikiinsults I further reccomend that it be terminated as disturbingly useless pompous and contentious/argumentative and boycotted. |
|||
BY THE WAY YOU ARE AN AHOLE |
Revision as of 03:55, 5 May 2004
Note:
If a conversation is spread across the talk pages of multiple users, I take
the liberty to copy related snippets to this talk page. Some comments were not
directly written on this page, but are always shown in the correct context.
Formatting may be adjusted anytime for consistency.
History of swimming
I wanted to express my appreciation for all the detail you added to History of swimming. I also want to ask you help limiting the number of redundant links. Duplicate links in an article add little or nothing for the reader but can make the article much harder to read. There is an on-going debate at Wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context about the degree of linking that stikes the best balance for our encyclopedia. But regardless of your position in that debate, I think I can say with confidence that the overwhelming concensus is to link only the first occurence in each article. Thanks. Rossami 01:48, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rossami. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, only here one month or so, and am still learning about the style. I will try to link only the first occurrence from now on. Thank you very much for fixing my entry. Chris 73 04:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Stutthoff
Articles about subcamps of Stutthoff are the beginning. Why you did remove any mention of being German? Cautious 10:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I am looking forward to see more info in these terrible short stubs. About removing german: no particular reason, I though a concentration camp of the third reich makes it pretty clear that they are german. Plus, your link to german is a disambiguity page, and your stubs were overall quite bad both in content (nothing new) and formatting (ugh!). Please take more care (and use the link Germany or Nazi Germany, not German) -- chris_73 11:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Chris, it is nonsense. If there were a concentration camp in the place, it is worth mentioning. Especially, that in the 2nd stage it is possible to identify exactly, where those camps were located and add more info about each of them. As to Germanhood, during ww2 there were also other camps i.e. UstasheCautious 11:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- OK, it seems you are adding more info to the stubs (e.g. Graniczna Wies). Thank you. I was mainly trying to fix a number of identical badly formatted stubs. Keep on working. Regarding link to Germany: No problem with adding links. I would prefer a link to Nazi Germany over Germany, but I can live with either one. -- chris_73 23:44, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Abbreviations
Re: abbreviations. "Jap." is not an accepted or acceptable abbreviation for "Japanese." Generally it's not necessary to use abbreviations in articles (such as "lit." for "literally") anyway. Please use the standard "Japanese" instead. Also, please see Wikipedia is not paper. By the way, I've looked at a couple of the recent cooking-related pages you've started, and they frequently list a particular cookbook as a reference. If the things you're writing about are well-known or are common knowledge then they don't really need a reference, unless you've copied from your source. Exploding Boy 03:45, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I just went through all the cooking pages and changed Jap.: into Japanese: and Lit.: into Literally:. I also removed the book reference, since I used it mainly for suggestions, but the info is otherwise common knowledge. Guess I am still too much used to paper and its abbreviations. -- chris_73 04:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- One more comment: it's not necessary to capitalize unless the word is at the beginning of a sentence (except for proper nouns, obviously), so you don't need to capitalize "literally" or the English translations of Japanese words, or the Japanese words you're using in the articles. Exploding Boy 04:22, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Thank you for checking all the Japanese literal translations. I'll do a bit more work on the Tsukiji fish market now. -- chris_73 04:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Parasite singles and Freeter
Your parasite singles and freeter articles are excellent. -- Tlotoxl 11:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- THANKS! Took me a couple of hours to write, glad you liked em. -- chris_73 00:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks!
Dear Chris:
Hi! I had never had the pleasure of talking with you before. Thanks for helping about the boxing articles and about the disambiguation page. As far as the Boxing photo I would also like to add that the fight is an amateur fight and professionals dont use the type of equipment seen in that photo. I think thats important to inform our readers of because many readers do not know that.
Well, its a pleasure to meet people like you! Thats what makes Wikipedia a great site.
Thanks and God bless you!
Sincerely yours,
Antonio Monster Ball Martin
Thanks! (2)
Tanx for the Google tip on Village Pump! Thats was right what I was looking for! Dobrowsky
Copyright Question
Hi Adam. I noticed you uploaded the image Image:Ac.deannekelly.jpg. This seems to be the mirror image of De-Anne Kelly's homepage. Since you didnt add copyright information to your upload, I was wondering if the image is copyrighted. Could you clarify the copyright info or source on the image page? Thanks a lot. -- chris_73 14:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- All the Member of Parliament photos come from the Parliament website and are not copyright. Adam 14:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Best Regards -- chris_73 14:29, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Vocabulary Project
Hi there, I saw you are interested in Japan and Germany, and English is not your first language. I guess I could write this in German as well, but you never know. I thought you might be interested in a project I am trying to start with some people from here, Wikibooks and Wiktionary. Check my page and let me know what you think about it. Get-back-world-respect 10:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
vfd tag
Re your list of mediawiki tags to use on your user page, {{msg:vfd}} should not be used as directed in the opening text of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. It should be replaced with {{subst:vfd}}. -- Graham :) | Talk 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I updated my boilerplate text. Best Regards -- chris 73 | Talk 16:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for featuring my article on the Did you know... section! Chris 73 | () Talk 01:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- It's a great article! Keep up the good work! jengod 01:33, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Ditto that! --mav 06:23, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Notations on Naming space poll
Good work calling out those fishy votes at the naming policy poll -- I was getting a little disturbed by the trend of people coming in and voting there when they obviously are not regular en.wikipedia contributors. →Raul654 06:53, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
- It seems there is a small project going on at the uk.wikipedia.org, organizing people to come over here and vote for Wikipedia:Naming_policy_poll. I cant read a thing, except the headline and the link at the bottom of this page. We'll see in a couple of hours, when the locals there go online during/after work. -- Chris 73 | () Talk 07:51, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- In crypto class today, I'll ask Dimitrij (a Russian friend of mine) if he can translate that for me. I'm also considering imposing voting minima on the Naming poll -- the same ones we use at requests for adminship. →Raul654 13:14, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
- PS - unfortunately, he couldn't make it out either. →Raul654 16:51, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I tried translating it with some links on the list with translation tools, but couldn't figure it out either. However, it seems that there was no ukrainian rush on Wikipedia:Naming_policy_poll (yet). -- Chris 73 | () Talk 02:42, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Iraq casualties question
You recently edited the page on casualties in the Iraq conflict to say that there are numerous, widely varying estimates of the numbers of wounded U.S. troops, depending on definitions. Every source I've seen quotes (and seems to accept as accurate) the figures provided by the Pentagon. Could you cite any sources where you've seen differing estimates? And, by the way, thanks for adding that great photo. Neow 20:18, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Glad you liked the photo. I tried to pick one that shows how the remains are treated with respect. Regarding casualties:
- I believe the pentagon has an interest to count low, both for wounded (now called injured) and dead (probably only combat, not accident, combat related accidents, or suicide), so i added the varying estimates. Come to think of it, the death toll also depends on the definition. Maybe if i have time i'll look it up. -- Chris 73 | () Talk 00:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the great citations - I've added some of this info to the casualties page. Neow 23:27, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
Hi, I've nominated you for adminship. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and let us know if you'd accept a nomination. RickK 04:38, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- YES, I do! Thank you so much for nominating me. I hope to be a good admin, and this would help me fight vandalism. -- Chris 73 | () Talk 05:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Andrew Zito
Could you please go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrew Zito#Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links) and sign your name to the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with RickK 19:55, 1 May 2004 (UTC)):" section? (And add anything else you think should be added.) Thanks. RickK 19:55, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I went to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrew Zito and made some edits, mainly a copy from the Vandalism alert, and a notice on his self reference on Joey Gallo. I also signed the page. BTW, also thank you very much for nominating me for Admin! -- Chris 73 | () Talk 00:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- It was your work on reverting Zito and getting his vandalism noticed that brought you to my attention, since we hadn't crossed paths too often before. I saw your dedication to getting vandalism reverted, and checked out your contributions, and decided you were a valuable User. RickK 00:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Vandalism by 195.188.152.16
I have opposed your admission:
User Chris 73 has alleged
195.188.152.16 Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to [5] and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages.
- This is a serious allegation of removing some probably valid information.
He should substantiate it.
I do admit (stupidly and I regret) replacing modemacs page after he reversed all the edits that I had taken a long while (and carefully) to add, which are informative and useful, and which are not in violation of any wiki-pedia guidelines that I can discover.
My contributions also cover several topics (as anyone can check).
He is unsuitable for admission until he substantiates his words, and until he stops taking a God-like approach to other caring contributors.
He caught no vandal !
- Snippet of my answer on his User talk:Olive
- First, I am glad that you got a login. This makes talking much easier. Secondly, I am also glad that you apologized to User:Modemac. Regarding vandalism: Adding links or content is no vandalism. Your actions as User:195.188.152.16 on the page of User:Modemac, however, was. That's why I alerted others of your actions, and you got banned for a short period of time. Back then you were a vandal. However, this does not mean that you will be a vandal in the future. Actually, I think your recent actions look very promising, and I am looking forward for your contributions. I removed the "caught vandal" notice from my User:chris 73 page.
- Regarding the links you added: I didn't like an external link to a site with other links, so I removed it. I think that's what got you in trouble with User:Modemac in the first place, who also did not like your link to a linklist. I just noticed the multiple reverts by User:Modemac, including your profanities, and tried to give him a helping hand, which got you banned and gave you some time to cool off. May I suggest that you pick one or two of the best links related to a topic on the linklist the rocksite, and add those to the article instead of the linklist?
- I don't remember exactly. where I though you removed content. Sorry. I also checked some of your other contributions, and saw no problem with them, so I did not touch them (e.g. St James's Theatre and others). A few more notices: Do not edit the page of another user. Add comments only on the talk page. Also, if you would like your past contributions to your new username, you can do so on Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit, although this may take some time. Finally: Welcome to Wikipedia, User Olive. -- Chris 73 | () Talk 15:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- Chris 73,
- Thanks for getting in touch. and for your concilatory words and encouagement.
- My action against modemac was wrong and stupid and I acnowledge that. However it was only taken in retaliation for his reverts without consultation.
- I had taken a lot of trouble, and often gone back to change typos etc. I had taken great care.
- Finally, The RockSite has so many options (lyrics, photos, tour dates) that the users may wish to pursue on a given topic.
- Another justification is that links (even very good ones) often disappear overnight. I do try to keep a eye on these on a cyclical (or reported basis). Valid links do enhance Wiki-pedia.
- Is this against Wiki-pedia rules or protocol.I cannot find it after exhaustive searching.
- I am trying to complement your excellent resource.
- I will remove my objection. I just wish modemac had adopted a better approach, but I am sure we will mend that bridge.
- It is difficult to discuss things with an anonymous user. Again thanks for getting a login. I have to admit that I also sometimes get a bit careless when reverting anonymous contributions, and your user:modemac edits propably put me in a negative mood towards your other edits. My apologies. Regarding the links to linklist: I am not aware of any special policy, It was just my feeling (and probably modemac's, too). Just out of curiosity: Are you affiliated with "the rocksite"? Again, I am glad that things are improving now. Best regards -- Chris 73 | () Talk 15:31, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- Chris,
- I run The RockSite. As I indicated in my posting to Modemac
- Really you should not have been so high-handed and should have expressed your view-point in a more reasonable manner (in accordance with wiki protocol).
- Really you should not have been so high-handed and should have expressed your view-point in a more reasonable manner (in accordance with wiki protocol).
- I believe that my site has photographs, content and informational web-links directly relevant to each page that I contributed to.
- My site is a labour of love, not for profit, and not selling anything (other than a link to a posters and memorabilia site that is not run by me).
- My links were directly to the page relevant for the particular musician or artist (not global).
- I am not advertising my site in the manner you suggest, but providing complementary information that is not in conflict with wiki-pedia. I note that IMDb (The Internet Movie Database) has many such links and very useful they are too. You have not removed them (and I hope you never do otherwise Wiki-pedia will be the poorer.
- It just like wiki-pedia - complimentary web info - not competition. You are welcome to take a look at www.rocksite.info
- I will not move my earlier contributions, as I indicated some (those about NZ, Sky and tele-communications) were not mine. All future posts will be done under my user Olive.
- Chris,
- Hi Olive. I am glad that things cooled down now. Thank you very much for removing your objections to my adminship. Regarding you adding links (as User:195.188.152.16) to your own site "The Rocksite": It's a nice site, but I still disagree with the links for two reasons:
- a direct link to the most relevant subsites would be better
- linking your own (non-commercial) site at Wikipedia can be seen as self-promotion
- In any case, I will no longer remove links to "The Rocksite", so the situation between us does not escalate again. Some wiki users may agree with you, some with me, but I fear that the links will continue to give you some trouble. At least with a login this can be discussed before it comes to blows. Anyway, happy contributing and Best Regards -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hi Olive. I am glad that things cooled down now. Thank you very much for removing your objections to my adminship. Regarding you adding links (as User:195.188.152.16) to your own site "The Rocksite": It's a nice site, but I still disagree with the links for two reasons:
What about Steve Jackson Games
Wasn't the Steve Jackson Games Company a target of this operation or was that a different one?
- Dear User:64.12.116.16: I have no idea what you're talking about. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:31, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Kosovo
Hi. Regarding the dispute about the name of the province in former yugoslavia, could you please not remove the poll on Talk:Kosovo and Metohia? The number of reverts alone should show that this is an important question, which, by the way, is all over wikipedia for similar problems. Check for example the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll for a number of cities, Kiev/Kyiv being the hottest dispute. Also, on the Village pump you listed Wikipedia:Naming conventions as a source, which recomends to use the most common name, not necessarily the local official name. IMHO this would be Kosovo. Others, of course, may have a different opinion, which is why there is a poll in the first place. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Chris, I see that you are good-intentioned, but you have been tricked. Current name disputes are nothing like this. They revolve around which English variant of the name of a particular place (Kiev/Kyiv, Bombai/Mumbai, Mecca/Mekkah etc.) should be accepted and not about which placename should be accepted. To create a paralell with this case, it would be OK to discuss whether to name the article "Kosovo and Metohia", "Kosovo and Metohiya" or "Kosovo and Metohija". In a few cases (Sea of Korea/Japan) there is discussion about which of names should be accepted, but these are international entities, having different names in different states, which is not the case here. The fact that "Kosovo" is the most common name in English of "Косово" is correct but not quite important - the most common name of "Косово и Метохија" is "Kosovo and Metohia". I will not remove the poll again, but I have no intention of respecting it. Nikola 19:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well, but to give you a counterexample, Germany is officially called Federal Republic of Germany, but the page is located at Germany, and is called Germany throughout the article, except for the intro and one sentence about the splitting into two germanies. Similarly, Switzerland would be Swiss Confederation, Bulgaria would be Republic of Bulgaria, etc. Pick a country, and you'll probably find an official version that differs from the common name. Besides, Kosovo and Metohia sounds to me like there are two provinces, like Texas and California. The poll also seems to be so far unanimous for Kosovo. I hope this won't turn into an edit war. -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Bye The experiment failed I will have no part of this stupid bourgeiosie project as the mechanism is completely faulty and I will not be blamed for nor escalate participation as if I were to act as an individualist I have better one than Wikistupidity Wikifailure Wikirudness and Wikiinsults I further reccomend that it be terminated as disturbingly useless pompous and contentious/argumentative and boycotted.
BY THE WAY YOU ARE AN AHOLE