User talk:Bazonka/Archive 4

Southern Ocean

FYI - also at ckatz talk page as well

Whatever you folks come up with there is and will a steady steam of news stories running like this http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/06/2786732.htm?section=justin - I am very sure that the average journalist is not going to stick to any arbitrary 60 degree story whatever you two might sort out - most journalists are inherently geographically challenged and lazy - and because of that alone - a lack of both sides of the story - will be to the detriment of wikipedia as the curious will see the sea shepherd story and - if they are not careful they are going to find a wikipedia article that tells them that whales and lives are at risk in an ocean that does not exist! Take care SatuSuro 08:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ocean extents

Checking over your last edits (which look OK to me), is it true that only Australia is holding up enactment of IHO-4? Is there a source for that? Otherwise, undue weight and all...

And do you have access to the IHO-4 text? Last time I looked at this stuff, I couldn't find the fourth edition actual document text anywhere. Though it seems the CIA did. :) If there's something I've missed, please tell. :) Franamax (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true to say that it's not been ratified because of Australia. But is this the whole picture? I don't know. I'm not sure how this can be reworded given my lack of knowledge - if we imply that other countries objected, then we may be unwittingly introducing an untruth, and I think that's worse than giving all the credit to Australia which, to be fair, is likely to have been the most vociferous opponent of the definition (and so possibly the weight is not entirely undue). I suggest leaving the text as it is, but I'd be happy for it to change if someone can think of an appropriate way to reword it. And as far as I know the 4th edition of Limits has never been made public. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now reworked this (following a flash of inspiration) so that it doesn't explicitly say that the non-ratification was due to Australia's objection, though it is implied. The reader can draw their own conclusions. I think this is a bit better. Bazonka (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cape leeuwin

wow keep up the hard work! ironic seeing the ref there (doubly ironic considering - Australia_and_the_Southern_Ocean ) SatuSuro 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If I can find a better one, I'll change it! Bazonka (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well - no big deal - the reason for the OZ and the SO article was for one mistake - maybe it is fitting it is used :) SatuSuro 13:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Intentional disambiguation links.

Please be aware that where an article contains an intentional link to a disambiguation page (as with many links on List of people with surname Smith) that link must be piped through the disambiguation term (e.g. [[Foo (disambiguation)|Foo]]). This prevents these links from appearing as links requiring disambiguation when we go through the longer lists at WP:DPL. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK - I'm fairly new to disambiguating. Paul Smith (disambiguation) is just a redirect page to Paul Smith, which is itself a disambiguation page (I'm trying to clean up any links to this). Do you think that the contents of these two pages should be swapped? Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, this is how it works: where there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page sits at the unadorned title. However, and this is especially the case with human names and cross-disambig links, there will be some intentional links to that disambiguation page. In order to make it easier to identify incorrect links to disambig pages, we pipe the intentional links through a redirect. By the way, good job disambiguating the rest of those links. bd2412 T 21:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Kosovan passport

Hi Bazonka, how is it going?

I saw this edit in response to a vandal user on Kosovan passport.

We're using the Template:Kosovo-note on articles where Kosovo is mentioned, to avoid flame wars (Kosovo; Kosovo, Serbia; Kosovo/Serbia; Kosovo/UN/Serbia; etc.) and use Kosovo only, followed by that note. Regarding Republic of Kosovo, do you think that it's necessary to say partially recognized, on articles where RoK is mentioned?

Thank you. kedadial 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the partially recognised status probably should be mentioned in the passport article because it's related to Kosovo's international relations. I know it's also mentioned further down in the article, but as it's pretty fundamental to the subject matter, it's worth mentioning in the intro. No matter which side of the fence you sit on, it is still true to say that it's partially recognised, and this shouldn't cause any flame wars.

But for other Kosovo articles (Music of Kosovo for example) that aren't related to international politics, then I wouldn't say that it's necessary to give any indication as to Kosovo's status at all. If the readers want to know, then they can read the Kosovo article.

Thanks Bazonka (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion and clarification. kedadial 11:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Relations of Kosovo

Haha great news story, got to love the Irish. On a serious note, do you think there is anything missing from the article? or anything which could be done to improve it? IJA (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the membership of Kosovo in International Organisations from FROK. I'm not saying that FROK is the most appropriate article to mention them on however I do think that we should make note of them somewhere. Where do you propose we should include this as it is notable information? A new article perhaps? IJA (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the "Positions taken by intergovernmental organisations" section of the International Recognition page is a good place for most, but do we really need to list everything? European Common Aviation Area for example? Bazonka (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars 'R' U

		The Hidden Page Barnstar
		I award you one for finding Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you answered the phone? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sir! Bazonka (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Swaziland

We should add Swaziland as recognizing. We have a gob of links that confirm it - even ones not sourced to Pacolli [1]. The Kosovo FM hates Pacolli, so they're not going to do him any favors by confirming this in anything approaching adequate speed. We should go ahead and add it. I may do so unilaterally, if you'll pardon the expression, if nobody else will, and I think I can defeat any counter argument. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been done. Bazonka (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories

You are invited to join the discussion here. Tadija^speaks 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) --Tadija^speaks 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment added. Bazonka (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles)#Kosovo_municipalities

Bazonka, can you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles)#Kosovo_municipalities? Your input would be appreciated. Cheers. kedadial 00:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment added. Bazonka (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

About Kosovo

How do you think, this article can be suitable for articles about Kosovo? It says that Brussels will put pressure on Serbia to enable it to recognize Kosovo. Article less than a month, I think that it is still relevant.http://www.trt.net.tr/trtinternational/fr/newsDetail.aspx?HaberKodu=93d2069d-dfa4-49c7-9977-6a035549351d&title=Agenda%20des%20Balkans%20%28116%29. "Brussels has so far not presented Kosovo to Serbia as a precondition for accession to the European Union. But it requires Serbia to pursue regional cooperation with the Balkan countries including Kosovo. But Serbia has been exhibiting for two years, a rather rigid approach against its neighbors who recognized the independence of Kosovo. Belgrade believes that with such conduct, his neighbors could one day begin to act to promote the interests of Serbia over Kosovo. In fact, Serbia is training in new issues at the regional and global, because of its policy on Kosovo. Belgrade assigns no position of leadership in Serbia but also obliges Brussels to review its policy on the latter. Brussels does not want a second problem "Cyprus" in the field, work on an accelerated accession of Serbia to the EU, in other words, the loss in Kosovo. But the policy of Serbia over Kosovo, able to expel Serbia from the EU, could also push Brussels to take a more rigid against Belgrade."(c)Sentinel R (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it says that Brussels will put pressure on Serbia. It says that EU wants regional co-operation (obvious), and that it may take a harder line against Serbia. This isn't implying that it will take a harder line. Bazonka (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo

Bazonka, as none responded after that, i am inviting you to edit version that two of us agreed on Talk:Kosovo. What do you say? --Tadija^speaks 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Bazonka (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Old recognition discussion

I never used the chance to respond to your question in our ancient debate regarding recognition term. Here it goes for recollection:

Biblbroks, I have brought this discussion to your talk page because it is taking up waaay too much space on the Talk:International recognition of Kosovo page. And I apologise for spelling your name incorrectly before.
Let me explain the meaning of "flogging a dead horse". You completely misunderstood it. The "horse" refers to your argument which you are "flogging" (whipping) by trying to continue it. In other words, you are working very hard to make something work, but it is a waste of time because it is "dead" - it will never, ever work.
Now for answering some of your questions:

1. "Who can be authoritative enough to connect the context and the meaning in every given case?" I don't understand what you mean. Why do you need authority for this? There is no authority amongst Wikipedia editors - things are done by consensus. And the consensus (with the exception of you) is that the title adequately covers the context of the article.
2. "If it is about recognition of independence, why couldn't it be also about recognition of dependence?" I suppose that a country that doesn't recognise Kosovo as an independent state, by default "recognises" it as a province of Serbia. But this isn't really how it works diplomatically. Diplomatically, countries recognise other countries, not bits of countries. For example, all countries "recognise" that California is part of the USA, but no countries have an embassy to California because they don't diplomatically recognise California - their embassy (and official recognition) is with the USA. So the "recognition" in the title of this article obviously refers to recognition as an independent state, not as part of a larger state.
3. "There are many ways of recognitions. With how many should this article deal with?" My statement "...entities recognise in a variety of ways..." was a response to your argument that recognition is a process. I was pointing out that there is not just one process for recognition, but many. I do not understand why the "process" element of recongition is at all relevant.
4. It could be considered POV that the article's title assumes that we mean recognition of Kosovo as independent, not recognition as a Serbian province. I think there may a valid case for renaming the article to "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" to remove this ambiguity. Yes, I said that there may be some ambiguity in the title - but not in the word "recognition"! The potential ambiguity is in the meaning of "Kosovo" - do we here refer to the state or to the province? But as I have said in point 2 above, this change is not entirely necessary because it should be clear that we are referring to Kosovo as an independent state. Hence my comment about "pedantic semantics". Semantics are, as you say, important. But extreme pedantry is unnecessary - it could turn a useful article into something unreadable.
   

Biblbroks, please can you repond to this post here, on your talk page. That way the whole discussion will be easier to read. Bazonka (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I will indulge you and answer on this page. A bit, though, because my opinion is that the debate should continue on the talk page for the matters of continuity, consistency and especially transparency. Therefore, I will transfer a part from it there, too. And apology accepted, but with a note of you being careful in the future - too much has had me disturbed (as personal attacks) in your words. Not to mention the hostility of some other contributors. The term hostility was used here instead of the terms personal attacks - as they do in England with euphemisms, don't they. Sincerely I'm not not taking you very neutral at the moment. Especially not objective. Maybe not even sincere.

As for the explanation of the phrase: there's no need for you to do that. I got your point. The very first time. Unfortunately you haven't got mine. I hope you get it now: don't take the role of some kind of authority whether consensus exists or could exist. Neither do describe my actions. I don't yours. And if I may be a bit sarcastic with you not to mind that too much and explain my figure of speech (if you haven't got it yet): a person is much more humanely AND/OR reasonably "metaphored" with a horse, than an issue could be personified with anything else, not even a horse.

The other issues I will answer on the talk page. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 15:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sort of ashamed how I so easily reacted too emotionally. But remembering the calm I was trying to have, despite the others' actions, I remember it wasn't so easy. But never mind that now. I will try to answer every point you have given in the same order - hopefully my words giving enough comprehension.

1. And the consensus (with the exception of you) is that the title adequately covers the context of the article. I was talking about the context of considering the whole article as an description of a process which is under way (eventually every state "recognizing" Kosovo), and the term recognition interpreted as a process. When these two are taken together into consideration there is bias towards statehood of Kosovo. When British were defeated in the American revolution, the monarch didn't proclaim that UK recognizes USA as sovereign state, but acknowledges it.
2. I suppose that a country that doesn't recognise Kosovo as an independent state, by default "recognises" it as a province of Serbia. The problem is that there is no antonym for recognize. So if some country wishes not to acclaim Kosovo its statehood, it isn't simply to state "we do not recognize". There should be some form of antirecognize if you understand what I mean.
3. I was pointing out that there is not just one process for recognition, but many. Actually you contradict yourself: you say there are many ways of recognition and that is true. But all these roads (or ways by which entities recognize) they all cumulatively lead to one - being recognized - that is, statement "We recognize it" which is the same as "It is recognized by us." So there is one process, recognition, (since there is one outcome), like one river with many tributaries - or many ways as you name it - or many different flows to the same sea - sea of being recognized. And the river is recognition.
4. But extreme pedantry is unnecessary I couldn't agree less. In such a delicate matter pedantry is a must.

Hope you can catch my drift and be in recognition of my arguments. :-) All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 22:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I had rather hoped that the overwhelming "Oppose" response to this discussion had put an end to your misguided attempts to change the article's title. Obviously not. I am not going to respond to this, or any other of your pointless discussions - it's just a waste of my time. Bazonka (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you for wasting your time and will try stop wasting it for this issue as for now. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 22:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would stop wasting people's time on other articles too. Bazonka (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You certainly lack good faith, and so I hope that you stop wasting my time as well as yours, with such negativism. --Biblbroks's talk 12:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Meridians

Hi Bazonka. I have added some Greenland-related detail to the 51st meridian west article, but I fear that although additions there are plenty, I might have misused the format, and splitting it all up into latitudinal rows would be better. I'm aware of this and would like to ask you to have a look, and perhaps improve on that long single-cell list... Regards, − Algkalv (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid it does look a bit of a mess. But if each element were to be put into separate rows then it might still look a mess. I think there is possibly too much detail in your edit.

I put water features in blue rows, and land features in white rows. If the table were fully expanded with your information (blue, white, blue, white, blue, etc.), it would become very long and wouldn't look particularly good. I think it should be kept to major or significant features only, e.g. wide fjords and large islands (islands can be listed together where there's only a narrow channel between them). We may end up with more than what was in my original edit, but less than in yours.

I don't think that any of the fjords north of Alluttoq Island are particularly notable (perhaps say something like "mainland, including the Nuussuaq Peninsula, and Alluttoq Island"). Then we have Disko Bay (albeit only a short section), and mainland all the way south to 64°39' (no particularly wide fjords). Stor Island is next (I noticed that it was in my edit, but is now absent. Have you used an alternative name, or did you miss it out?) and more mainland.

I really don't think we need more detail. These articles are really just summaries. If anyone wanted more detailed information, then a proper map would be far more useful. What do you think? Bazonka (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at simplifying the page. Perhaps I've done it too much - if you think I've removed any fjords that I shouldn't have, then we can put them back. Incidentally, I realised that Stor Island links to a Canadian island, not the Greenlandic one at 64°30' - I think it may have a different name. Bazonka (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of the added content should remain. The fjords and peninsulas north of Nuussuaq are all part of the vast Uummannaq Fjord system, the largest on the entire western coast. As of now, the article suggests there is nought but mainland and two islands between the far north and the south. Apart from that, the 'Stor' island should go, I think. It is a relatively unimportant island within Nuuk Fjord, and for this meridian, both Nuuk Fjord and Kangerlussuaq Fjord are far more notable, the latter being the main waterway in central-western Greenland (a shipping lane). So I would suggest addition of something along the lines of: 'inner waterways and peninsulas of Uummannaq Fjord', or 'inner parts of the Uummannaq Fjord system', or something similar. Skipping the fjords south of Disko Bay would be fine, if spartan, but then the mid-fjord island at 64° should go too. − Algkalv (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 2010 New Guinea earthquake

I have nominated 2010 New Guinea earthquake, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 New Guinea earthquake. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Aditya Ex Machina 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Kosovo-note

I see you have reverted my change to the above. Please can you participate in the discussion. You have asked me to establish consensus but I cant do that if you wont give reasons for your edits etc. Thanks. 84.203.78.178 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back again on your points on this. Could you go back again and see if we can reach consensus. 84.203.78.178 (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. 84.203.78.178 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo

I welcome the opportunity to hear your line of thinking on the Kosovo article at this thread on the Kosovo Talk page. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that I was trying to have an agreeable conversation with you, but then you went through my contribs and reverted other similar edits. As an encyclopedia, if we edit according to the sensitivities of involved parties, then we create an inherently biased body of work. "As far as Georgia is concerned" or "as far as Kosovo" is concerned, and even "as far as the majority of the world" is concerned, are incredibly biased positions for editing an objective work. A country is a country if it controls its own territory, regardless of which countries chose to "recognize" that it is a country. The entire recognition element of these types of debates is entirely a legacy of the two World Wars... Historically, you get a spot on the map if you can maintain your territorial control as either a wholly independent sovereign entity, or a client state. Kosovo is at best a fully sovereign state, and at worst, a client state of NATO. It also happens to be a former part of Serbia. The same relative logic applies to Abkhazia and S.O., even if it annoys everyone but the Russians. Nobody disputes the Confederate States of America constituted a "real" country, and it remains true that the CSA was also a former part of the USA, while remaining a claimed territory of the USA, before eventually being conquered and reincorporated.

There is an encyclopedic view of the world, which is what we are here to present. The encyclopedic view should represent all major versions of the truth. In the case of Kosovo, S.O., or Abkhazia, this would mean break-away countries with disputed independence, but independence nonetheless. Any one of the three republics may in the future, like the CSA, become a part of their respective "parent" country again, and they also may not, but we'll record it only if and when it happens. We shouldn't be afraid of dealing intellectually with delicate topics, as the only reason these topics are delicate to begin with is due entirely to very ugly forms of 19th century nationalist real politik behaviors on the part of many countries, which is also something that should be treated with a fully illuminating encyclopedic exploration. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that your edits were not neutral. I am sure you were not doing this deliberately (some editors are clearly biased - I don't think that's the case with you), however saying that Abkhazia = Republic of Abkhazia is giving only the separatist Abkhazian/Russian point of view; the article must also give the other POV which is that Abkhazia = a province of Georgia. (And the same argument for S.Ossetia and Kosovo.) Whilst de facto these territories are practically independent states, in many people's/countries' POVs this is not de jure the case. Above you say that Kosovo is a former part of Serbia - well that is only true from one POV, from the Serb (and many others) POV it is still part of Serbia. The fact that these territories are sometimes considered to be provinces should, at least in the introduction, be given equal weight to the fact that they are de facto independent. It has not been easy to word these articles in such a way that gives both positions equal standing, and it will be very contentious to change them. I think that your edits are unnecessary and are (probably unintentionally) introducing a bias. Bazonka (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding... I'm definitely not taking you to arbitration, so no worries! :-) I think your edits were perfectly reasonable, and I really only took minor issue with the rollback of a few of my other contributions. The post at the ArbCom page was related to my intentions with the article, but not at all with you or your behavior. I'm very slowly seeking a greater clarification on how we define the subjects of articles when the definition of the subject is inherently controversial to begin with, which as you note, is a very delicate task... Hiberniantears (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hello, Bazonka. You have new messages at SlimVirgin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Added El Salvador

Upon further research I found that El Salvador had recognizes Kosovo back on June 3rd, so i added that to the page. What needs to be done now is the map needs to be fixed. Please fix map, or get the guy who does fix the map to do it. Thanks =D Sopher99 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The report you cited dates from 2009 and was never substantiated. So the map should not be updated. Bazonka (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Biography 'Henry Plee'

Hi Bazonka, I would be grateful if you had a few minutes to look at the new biography that I have created for Henry Plee, and possibly polish it as well both in English and in the form. Thanks in advance. (Bozo888 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

I've had a go. Probably needs a bit more work though. Bazonka (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)