User talk:Koavf/Archive004
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
){kind=link}
Postcrossing
Hi there
I invite you to put this userbox on your userpage !
| File:Ee337.JPG | This user is addicted to Postcrossing. |
Just click edit this page to see the code for it ! Happy Postcrossing! Swollib 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
R.E.M. compilations
We've already explained the meaning of official versus unofficial, provided a concrete source, and it's still not good enough for you. I agreed with your view that BJ Cole shouldn't be included in the 'Other musicians' section of the template when I did it, but you're making yourself look silly with this one. None of the "unoffical" compilations are mentioned in the body of the main article, so they shouldn't even be in the band template. Please accept the changes. It will help you sleep at night. - Dudesleeper 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Example of unofficial: "Peter Holsapple, unofficialy the fifth member of R.E.M.," as Stipe called him. He wasn't recognised by the band as a full-fledged member. - Dudesleeper 17:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
SLN?
Can you please clarify what SLN stands exactly for ! I have just added something on Dutch Sign Language, but I am not sur eif this is correct. JKW 20:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- What I do not understand why SLN is cross-linking to Dutch Sign Language, since it is nowhere mentioned! I have just added SLN, but is this correct? And what is the connection to NGL? And if SLN is standing for sign language why is the redirect of SLN then not linking to that article?
- I ask you, because you have created the SLN redirect.
- JKW 20:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Are you saying you do not rember what SLN is standing for? Then I would say delete that redirect to Dutch Sign Language. JKW 22:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 15:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Chinese people
I saw you categorised Chinese painters by the second name, that second name is not their family name, it's their given name, that's why they were not categorised like that. Gaudio 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Mmmmm, OK, do you want to know more situations like thi?, mmm, let me see, let me see, i've been correcting these corrections for a very long time in several wikipedias, Chinese people, hmmm, oh yes, Icelandic people! Their second name is a patronimic name, so they don't classify themselves withtheir second name as you can see in the Icelandic wikipedia in this link for instance [1]. But well, they are more situations, the only thing that you have to do is watching several articles in the same category.
- I saw you're interasted in Western Sahara, i made an article of a very famous activist in Spain: Cristina del Valle. Well, be a good boy, take care. Ciao Gaudio 16:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
===Date formats related to topics===
Looking at this diff, I would be obliged if you could take a look at this Manual of Style guideline:
- If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning Ireland, all member states of the Commonwealth of Nations except Canada, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and the Philippines, it is most commonly [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.
Please do not change date formats contrary to consensus. I would be obliged if you could look over your recent work and undo any similar format changes. --Jumbo 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Morocco Talk Page
Koavf, please stop biting Yasser so hard for trying to put his opinion into the discussion. If I wanted to assume bad faith about your editing I would have plenty of ammountion with all the 'I support the Western Saharans indepence' bagdes all over this user page. So far Yasser has done nothing to actually affect the discussion. Also please don't accuse him of begin a sock-puppet just because he has only editied this page. Everyone has to start somewhere and if it just happens to occur in a nationist debate so what. Lastly, can you please make sure the discussion stays on topic about the map because this is not a debate about the nations indepence.
PS, if you have any issue with this please post on my talk page and not here because I will not be looking at this page again. Regards Aussie King Pin 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Hassaniya. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation! -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions[2] made on September 22 2006 to Template: R.E.M.
 |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
Hi Justin, someone just asked on Talk:October why Rocktober and Roctober are redirects to October. I see that you created both of them a year ago. Do you remember why? It doesn't seem like someone typing in either of those words would expect to land at October. -- Jim Douglas 02:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like the date of the redirect was 16:22, 26 September 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocktober&oldid=24112592). The name has been a personal domain name (http://rocktober.com/) for 8 years, and is part of a registered trademark application from this summer for "Legends of Rocktober". But now the Rockies want to get a trademark on it - sigh: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7218944 --NealMcB 23:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Great work
on List of African Union member states by political system and Enlargement of the African Union. —Nightstallion (?) 15:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Template: R.E.M.
| |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 48 hours. — xaosflux Talk 14:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
- What See the history. I did not revert more than three times in a 24-hour period. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- While I agree that you did not violate 3RR again, the back and forth reverting between you two needs to stop. Blocks for Edit Warring itself can and are issued. 3RR is just one of the more tangible anti-edit-war rules. But in general edit warring is not a good thing. Personally, I might not have issued the blocks, but I would likely have Protected the template itself. One way or another, you and BGC need to resolve this thing. And the continuing back and forth reverting was doing nothing to solve things. Once you two are back from your blocks, it may be time for some sort of dispute resolution to be employed. Mediation, RFC, etc., exist to try to get these things resolved.
- You brought this up on WP:ANI. Now you have the attention of multiple admins. And one thing this means is that, one way or another, the constant back and forth reverting is not going to stand. If, after the 48 hours expire, you and BGC resume the reverting, 3RR or not, you can likely expect more blocks and/or protection of the template to follow soon after. This needs to be resolved, and resolved without simply reverting each other. - TexasAndroid 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Response I am working on it by posting on AN/I. This comes after petty sniping, e-mails, posting on the articles' and users' talk, requesting mediation three times (twice in e-mails), etc. I want it to end, and blocking is not going to help; it will only make things worse as people will get more bitter. Also, it prevents me from making important and useful edits, such as Languages of the African Union, which I was going to try and finish today. Blocking me now is essentially double jeopardy for having broken the 3RR previously, and gets us nowhere. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Note
I have reduced the length of your block - yours and BGC both - to "time served" plus an extra three-and-a-bit hours, so that you can start over fresh tomorrow morning.
As well, I have tinkered with the REM template in such a way that it should satisfy you both. DS 23:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not replace links to Russian Federation with Russia. I was just about to tag Russian Federation with ((R with possibilities)), but decided to wait a few days. -- Petri Krohn 05:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- AWB fixes Why don't you want me to fix this with AWB? Are you planning on splitting Russia into two articles? How? Why? I don't see anything on Talk:Russia about it... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- 1. Because Russian Federation should be tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. I have not done this today, because it might be event better to move Russia to Russian Federation. See my comments on Portal:Russia/New article announcements.
- 2. In article Leonid Reiman you not only not only changed the link, but also edited the visable text to Russia. See also Russia (disambiguation). -- Petri Krohn 18:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not even close to being finished. I think I added maybe 100-150 tags and I got tired. For some strange reason, it appeared that I was retagging certain people. Like I remembered that I already tagged Academic Challenger, but apparently on the page, it says he's not an admin. It's pretty weird. Anyway, I'll get back to it sooner or later. It will take me a while, since I also frequently do RC patrol, and CSD and AIV business. --Nishkid64 18:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I was doing it by the special page list of admins. --Nishkid64 18:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Horse racing stubs
Please stop adding stubs to horse races - some of these articles are clearly not stubs, such as Ascot Gold Cup. For an example of a horse race which is currently a stub see Washington Singer Stakes. Thank you - Zafonic 20:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I second the request of Zafonic. Many of the races you've tagged have every horse who's ever won the race going back a hundred years. I see you got tired inserting all those tags. It's no wonder. I also see by what you say above about acquiring a huge number of edits, that you did so without reading the articles. Sheesh. ..Ki Longfellow 00:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The winners of horse races often ARE the subject of the article. There is only so much history to record, unless the race is huge, like the Kentucky Derby or the Ascot. These races are for horse racing fans on wikipedia to keep up with the races offered on various tracks, usually the most important ones, the Graded stakes events. You are wasting your time sticking stubs all over them, because most of them are growing as those of us interested find out more about a race. I think we can tell when a race needs more info. It's also not that easy to find the winners throughout the years. For instance, in the Davona Dale, it took me three hours to write as much as I could find. Your casual, seemingly automated, stub sticking is rather insulting. I would also like to thank you for your efforts as Zafonic did, but your response to me was rude, abrupt, and overweening. You also exagerate. I did not say hundreds of years; I said a hundred years. ..Ki Longfellow
I see you immediately removed my addition of the Moroccan flag per some "long discussion on talk." There is no long discussion on the talkpage. All that is there is a short, inconclusive argument between you and Daryou. Anyways, I added the Flag of Morocco so as to represent the opposing POV on the subject; I didn't remove the SADR flag (which would be biased), I just added the Moroccan one below it (which is a perfect example of a neutral compromise, in my opinion.) And you reverted me.
If you read WP:POV, you'll see the sentence: "Recall co-founder Larry Sanger's prescription that Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects." Are you telling me that the Kingdom of Morocco's point of view is not major? Or are you telling me that Western Sahara is not a controversial subject? Or are you telling me that Larry Sanger is wrong? As far as I can tell, it is one of those three, so I'd appreciate a reply either here or on my talkpage. Picaroon9288 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Justin, you avoided my points. It is irrelevant that you didn't "completely" revert me; you undid my major addition, and that is what counts. And the talkpage discussion that User:Francis Tyers participated in doesn't indicate him saying that only the SADR flag should be used. So I'm still not sure how you removed the flag "per long discussion on talk."
- Also, the flag is that of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic - you can take a look right at the top of that page. The flag is shown there, not at Western Sahara. Western Sahara is no more a sovereign, viable political body than Kashmir or Hans Island; it is a territory that is claimed in its entirety by the Kingdom of Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and Wikipedia should give no preference to either of these claims, on articles or portals (or anything else.) Western Sahara is the topic of the portal, not the SADR or Morocco. Therefore, both flags should be shown close to eachother so that it is clear that Western Sahara has 0 official flags, and 2 competing flags, neither of which are recognized by Wikipedia. So both of those flags, or none, should be shown, as in the article Western Sahara.
- Finally, let me phrase my questions this way:
- Do you agree, or disagree, that the focus of the portal is the region Western Sahara, not the SADR?
- Do you agree, or disagree, that Morocco's POV should be represented equally to the SADR's POV?
- Do you agree, or disagree, that the SADR's flag is no more or less valid than Morocco's?
- If you say "agree" to all of the above, then it would seem that both flags should be presented, or neither. So which of the three do you say "agree" in response to? That's all I really need to know. Picaroon9288 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll make this concise: if the discussion at Western Sahara decided to show neither flag, then why shouldn't the portal do the same? After all, they cover the same topic. Now that I've thought about it, removal seems like the most reasonable thing, so that is what I propose. Do you have any objections to this? If you oppose my proposal, can you cite a source for "The international opinion regarding the legality of the two states that claim the territory is overwhelmingly in favor of the SADR," please? Because last I checked, 192 minus 147 is not really an overwhelming anything. Picaroon9288 20:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- You say that the portal "discusses all manner of topics related to the territory (politics being preeminent.)" Then why aren't Morocco's politics applicable? The SADR's apparently are. I find it as simple as this: If the SADR flag is displayed, it is only fair for the Moroccan one to be there too. I won't change anything, seeing as you're convinced the portal is fine, but I want you to know that I don't believe it gives a neutral view of the conflict to display one flag, whichever one it is. *Backs away from the northwest, goes to edit amwiki* Picaroon9288 22:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please stop!
Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting as you did in Wikipedia:Recent additions 54. It seems that you are systematically and automatically going aroung Wikipeadia and changing occurances of Russian Federation to Russia without any reason. This is not disambuguation, as Russian Federation is a more specific term than Russia. Neither is it "clean up" as you have labeled it in your edit summary. It seems to me that it is hardly anything more than misguided ethnic POV pushing. -- Petri Krohn 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Petri -- Koavf's changes appear to be correct. He is changing Russian Federation -- which is simply a redirect -- to Russia. This has nothing to do with POV; it's a simple clerical change. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have now labeled Russia with {{R with possibilities}}. This should be enought to stop "simple clerical changes".
- P.S. I am sorry if I mistook you for a nationalist. It seems that Russian Wikipedans would like to see all present and historic links to "Russia" point to Russia/Russian Federation.
- It is not a "clerical" change like simply bypassing a redirect. Koavf has been changing the text "Russian Federation" to "Russia" in these links, and these are not exact synonyms. The Russian Federation is a modern country, while Russia is a nation, an Empire, a Soviet Republic, as well as a modern state—sometimes it is also used to refer to the medieval state of Rus’ or the entire Soviet Union. In many places it changes the meaning. Automating a change like this while ignoring the context of the words is a really bad move—every single one of those changes now needs an editorial review to make sure it hasn't created a misleading sentence (as it did here). —Michael Z. 2006-10-11 18:02 Z
- Misleading? How is that misleading? Furthermore, how is it more or less misleading than what was before? It's ungrammatical, but so was the previous sentence. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- If it's ungrammatical, then why didn't you edit the grammar? My point is that you are using
dumbundiscriminating automation to make editorial changes to many articles at once. Bad idea.
- If it's ungrammatical, then why didn't you edit the grammar? My point is that you are using
- Grammar I didn't change the grammar, because I had 500 other edits to do. It's not dumb; it's the point of WP:AWB. What is dumb is having several hundred instances of a redirect. Changing "Russian Federation" to "Russia" will never create an inaccuracy, just a slightly less precise term, and in almost any case, they would always be construed as the same thing (e.g. "President of Russia" is identical to "President of the Russian Federation.") Again, how is this edit misleading? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was a bad choice of words: I meant undiscriminating automation to make a mass change which affects the meaning of a sentence. "Just a slightly less precise term, and in almost any case, they would always be construed as the same thing", you say, but an editor purposely entered that more precise term, and you are subtly changing the meaning in dozens of articles, without even reading them. Including possibly an extra thousand years of history is not slight, anyway.
- Regarding "misleading": if you're changing a word to "just a slightly less precise term" and if "in almost any case, they would always be construed as the same thing", then what does that make the other cases? The random minority of your several hundred changes where they would not be construed as the same thing? Will you argue that by only randomly changing the sense of sentences significantly in a few dozen articles you haven't degraded the careful work of other editors, or compromised the editorial integrity of those articles? Please don't use automation to make mass edits which change the meaning of sentences!
- And neither you nor I knows how misleading your edits have been, although Petri (below) has had a good look and is not happy. I have no desire to review all 500 or whatever, and obviously you are not interested in individually defending your edits. Best revert, and rerun your edit with a proper disambiguation link. —Michael Z. 2006-10-11 19:56 Z
- Ok, I understand the problem now. I do think this was a good faith edit on Koavf's part. But I agree...this needs to be discussed on Talk:Russia. Since Russian Federation only refers to the existing nation-state, while Russia is a broader term that can refer to predecessor nations, it does seem like something that needs to be talked over. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- First a frendly piece of advice: If you do not have a political/nationalistic ax to grind, it is best to stay away from the Rus', Russia etc. issues. This is one of the most politically sensitive issues on Wikipedia. An example is the article Etymology of Rus and derivatives. It takes pains not to use or even hint at the rendering of Rus' as Russia, even though this was the most common form outside of academia before 1990.
- On the issue itself: all references to Russia need to be checked against Russia (disambiguation). Many links do in fact refer to other "Russias" than Russia = Russian Federation. Adding these already diambiguated links to Russia makes the task just so much more difficult. -- Petri Krohn 18:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Justin -- Petri (and now others) have advised you that this is a complicated area which needs further discussion. How about if we take this off your AWB list until the complexities are resolved? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Jim You'll notice that I have stopped. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, noticed that; thanks. I don't see any bad faith here on anyone's part...just a complicated area that needs to be sorted out before we make any more mass edits. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also note that the Russian Federation is a multi-ethnic state, while "Russia" refers to a single ethnicity and language. Your edits here [3] produced a really mixed up result. -- Petri Krohn 18:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Reverting edits
I have gone through your Russian Federation edits. I find most if not all of them objectionable. If the original editor has gone through the effort of writing "the Russian Federation" instead of "Russia", it is usually for a very good reason. I have managed to manually revert some 50 of your edits, but now I see that there are hundreds of them. I therefore ask you; go back and revert your edits, if you have the tools to do this automatically. -- Petri Krohn 19:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Assumptions It's faulty logic to assume that the original editor had a very good reason for writing Russian Federation. In point of fact, we know that he was ignorant or careless enough to lead the user to a redirect, so that would imply a lack of good reason, if anything. Find one instance where the reader would not understand that "Russia" refers to the state of the "Russian Federation." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- PLEASE' next time you do somewthing like that, talk to people first. Redirects exist for a number of reasons. I started reviewing what Petri Krohn didn't finish, and I see in vast majority of cases the canhge was clueless. `'mikka (t) 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Understanding that the reason was good intentions gone mad, here is a small bit of education for future: it is mostly OK to say "Russia" in informal or geographical contexts, but it historical and political contexts there may be a BIG difference. If someone wrote Russian Federation, he probably had reason. Think about it: it is much cheaper to type "Russia" than RuFed.
- It is OK to kill redirects for different spellings, but for synonyms you must know the topic well to be sure that there would be no subtle change of the meaning. `'mikka (t) 06:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Here is an example of 100% bullshit recognizable only by an expert in the topic: Russian Census of 2002] (Russian: Всеросси́йская пе́репись населе́ния 2002 го́да) was the first census of Russia. And there were much more. `'mikka (t) 06:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- The President of Russia, known commonly as the President of Russia. :-)`'mikka (t) 08:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- PLEASE' next time you do somewthing like that, talk to people first. Redirects exist for a number of reasons. I started reviewing what Petri Krohn didn't finish, and I see in vast majority of cases the canhge was clueless. `'mikka (t) 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
China => the People's Republic of China
Your recent changes of China to the People's Republic of China have been somewhat sloppy - in List of extinct states, you've left ungrammatical constructions like modern the People's Republic of China floating around; in List of Roman Catholic archdioceses, your change left a list item starting with a small letter, and the list entry improperly alphabetized.
Please go back and review the changes you've made, and fix them for grammar, style, and list alphabetization. Argyriou 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded that. PLEASE dont messt with topics you have no clue. `'mikka (t) 05:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Response to Mikkalai's posts
Russia Good point. I'll review more of them. China That was rude; what makes you think I have no clue about China? I was much more moethodical about the Chinese changes, and reverted myself a couple of times upon inspection. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Russia: no need to review, I've already done this.
- China: I have no clue about China myself and don't edit these articles (and didn't revert any of your changes, btw), but someone else raised the red flag, so I saw it as a pattern of careless haste (although with clearly good intentions), so I seconded the opinion.
- I hope next time you will inspect before changes. And seing a huge number of links to a particular redirect (I believe you know how :-) please cosult with people engaged in active editing of articles on the topic. Quite often a redirect is merely because someone was lazy to write the corresponding article and just redirected somewhere else where there is a word or two on the topic, and others not seeing a red link didn't bother either. I myself created a couple of dozens of articles from clueless redirects. `'mikka (t) 15:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- One clue would be stating that Manchukuo reverted to the Republic of China after the Soviet invasion in 1945. However, I was mainly protesting the sloppiness of the edits, which happened to touch on a couple of articles I edit. It appears that you did a very minimal scan of your changes, and even if it were more correct to state People's Republic of China instead of China, your edits detracted from the quality of the articles. Argyriou 15:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the above users. Many of the name changes you've made to People's Republic of China/China (especially to articles related to official or international organizations such as World Trade Organization, United Nations, Chemical Weapons Convention...) are simply unnecessary. Because most of the time, when concerning international matters, that is how People's Republic of China (as China) is listed in the official texts (and most of organizations do it that way), so when you've made change to its name not according to the source it is based on, it becomes confusing and derivative of its original contents. An important thing to remember especially regarding lists or templates, the abbrev or shortened name is also preferred over formal or full name, as it is easier for organization and formatting.
- You also need to look at the historical and cultural contexts of each articles, as some of the name changes you've made are quite laughable. Examples: the articles you've changed related to historical events, such as articles about historical Russia. Russian Federation did not exist in the Middle Ages, so when you changed the name to Russian Federation when whenever is a mentioning of Russia, it simply becomes a glarring mistake. --Lashaneria 23:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? I didn't change "Russia" to "Russian Federation" in any article. And the irony that you pointed out is directly contradictory to what you said about China - it is laughable to say that China (the ancient civilization) is in the World Trade Organization; it's not. Two Chinese states are, but not the Chinese empire. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was pointing out an example, but I see you actually did the contrary. But I also don't see any difference your "cleaning up" makes since they both direct to the same entity.
- Here is how state parties are listed in the World Trade Organization, The official list, here is China [4], here is Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) [5]. Notice that never was China listed as its full name People's Republic of China nor was Taiwan listed as Republic of China (or Taiwan) in the list. I think you have to be honest to its policy and not just manipulate the name according to your own opinions. And that refers to all articles relates to international organizations as well as their naming conventions.--Lashaneria 15:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- You also need to look at the historical and cultural contexts of each articles, as some of the name changes you've made are quite laughable. Examples: the articles you've changed related to historical events, such as articles about historical Russia. Russian Federation did not exist in the Middle Ages, so when you changed the name to Russian Federation when whenever is a mentioning of Russia, it simply becomes a glarring mistake. --Lashaneria 23:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please scrutinize what you edit. See [6]. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of your changes are necessary and desired, but a few are ridiculous. I've reverted some of your edits in the past couple days. You may want to review my contributions to see what I reverted. In particular, "China" is perfectly fine when used as a geographical entity. It is not necessary to bring in the name of a political entity when we are speaking of the origins of a plant... Changing the circumstances of someone's birth in 1937 from "in China" to "in the Republic of China" is very misleading as the article at "Republic of China" is for a large part based on the existing Republic of China in Taiwan. They were born in the geographical entity of China, so I don't see how the previous wording objectionable. A link to the "Republic of China" should mostly have to do with the political entity. Who knows what the geographical entity of the "Republic of China" means? --Jiang 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you mistake the China article to be on the "ancient civilization" or the "ancient imperial China" when it is on much more, including what exists as a cultural and geographic entity today. For example see China#Society.
The mention of "mainland China" for the period before 1949 is an anachronism. The article at mainland China in its entirety has nothing to do with events, terms, or preceptions before the 1949 split. It is therefore misleaing and irrelevant. Provinces are not only political divisions. They are placenames with cultural connotations. It if for the same reasons that we can say that someone was born in Gansu that I say "I live in North America" and "I live in Silicon Valley" even though there is no such political entities as North America or Silicon Valley. That whether the "Free Area of the Republic of China" is part of China is dispute does not negate the fact that Beijing is indisputably part of China. There is nothing wrong with the statement "an earthquake happened in 1998 in Bejing, China" unless you want to call the city "Beiping" like they do in Taipei. --Jiang 04:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
To say that an earthquake happened in "Beijing, China, in 1998" is not POV, because the link to China does not endorse a single Chinese state. "Beijing, People's Republic of China" would me more POV than "Beijing, China" if you think the status of the PRC is up to dispute. I really fail to understand your point.--Jiang 05:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Beiping is a centrally administered municipality of the Republic of China that is currently occupied by the Chicom bandits. That the Chicoms are occupying Beiping illegally does not negate its status as part of the sovereign territory of the Republic of China. (not being sarcastic, just trying to demonstrate the the point of view you are trying to defend/accomodate is not opposed to the rendering "Beijing, China"....well, it is. it should be "Beiping", not "Beijing") --Jiang 18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not the one trying to paint the PRC as the "occupier"; I am responding the statement To say that an earthquake happened in "Beijing, China, in 1998" is POV, as it chooses one Chinese state as the legitimate "China." Since what constitutes China is a matter of dispute in the international community, it is innapropriate for Wikipedia to choose a single Chinese state as the "true China." that implies that this is somehow an issue. Instead of "Beijing is a capital of China" the naming conventions dictates "Beijing is the capital of the People's Republic of China" since we are specifying something political. However, "China" can be used to refer to a geographical/cultural entity unrelated to politics, as it has been done in the current China article. Does the statement "Mount Tai is in Shandong province of China" have anything to do with the People's Republic of China? The statement has held true long before the PRC was founded and will hold true long afterwards. The PRC is totally irrelevant in this picture. Perhaps certain other territories, like Hong Kong, have not always been regarded by everyone as "part of China", but like Mount Tai, there is no dispute by anyone. Who disputes the statement "Beijing is in China"? I just don't see who... --Jiang 03:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Where the official borders of the PRC and ROC differ, I agree that we should specify which one we are referring to. In the case of Tibet, we would have to specify "Tibet Autonomous Region" to be in the "People's Republic of China" since the ROC had no such AR. When speaking of modern places within the former Xikang, it would perhaps be appropriate to specify the modern day province (Sichuan) or autonmous region (Xizang) as being part of the PRC, as Xikang was a province under the ROC. However, where the borders do not change, then I do not see a dispute. It doesn't matter what the PRC defines things as if the definition does not contradict that of the ROC. By saying "Shandong is in China" we are not specifying what we mean by China. The statement is totally true and disputed by no one. It is less POV not to clarify which China you mean than it is to specify either ROC or PRC because when you do, you lend legitimacy to the state entity. The statements "Such-and-such tank is used in China" and "such-and-such tank is used in the People's Republic of China" are both true if "Such-and-such tank is used in mainland China." No one will dispute this. I really don't see the need to complicate things. If no one is disputing the validity of a statement, then why complicate it?
And by the way, Tuva, formerly part of the Mongolia region of the ROC, is part of modern day Russia. --Jiang 04:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yogurt move
I wonder if you would consider striking out the reason you gave for moving yoghurt to yogurt, and putting a different one in place. The fact that "yogurt" is more common is not a valid reason to move the page, and it puts off the voters who are aware of that fact. If you changed it to something like the following, people would be less likely to vote against the move in my opinion:
- The article was improperly moved from its original spelling, "yogurt", to "yoghurt". The manual of style states that in the absence of specific reasons to prefer one dialect, the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor should be used. The first version used "yogurt".
--Yath 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sure Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry could you direct me to the appropriate section of the talk page? Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You tagged the SONET article with {{tone}} just after it was vandalized. Did reverting solve the issue? BertK 18:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions[7] made on October 14 2006 to Western Sahara
The duration of the block is 48 hours.
This is but the last of many blocks you've had. Please reconsider your style or prepare yourself for longer blocks.
William M. Connolley 18:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a shame to see someone being forgiven once for breaking this rule and being here the first one to go reporting others. This is not constructive and unethical once more. -- Szvest 00:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey. I was about to move The Cars that Ate Paris to The Cars That Ate Paris, until I noticed you had moved the film from there to the current title in February with explanation: Naming conventions. I believe this is incorrect, as that is a pronoun and not a preposition or a conjunction, and therefore should be capitalized, as on other articles and on IMDb. I decided to contact you before moving it back, in case I am wrong after all. Drop me a line, please. Prolog 02:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Koavf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I assert that I did not break 3RR, as there is no old version of the page to which I reverted and I responded to the requested changes on talk, and I am in the process of mediation on the article in question and a related topic. I have every intention of being a positive, contributing member to the community and cannot proceed with this goal presently. Please respond here and/or e-mail me to discuss. I have discussed with the blocking admin. Contents of block infobox:
- Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
- You were blocked by William M. Connolley for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
- Western Sahara
- Your IP address is 134.68.143.120.
- Note that ip is dynamic.
Decline reason:
Your false edit summary here was enough to warrant a similar-length block. So we can call it quits at the one you've got, I think. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Decline if you will, but it's not false.
Regarding reversions[8] made on October 17 2006 to Western Sahara
The duration of the block is 7*24 hours.
This is silly. You'll end up indef blocked at this rate - whats the point?
William M. Connolley 09:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties
Thanks for contributing to the List of treaties article. I would appreciate any other contributions you might have pertaining to treaties in general. If you want, please sign your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties if you are interested in writing treaty articles, editing them, etc. If not, thanks anyway for your help. Later. Deucalionite 14:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless you plan to convert USA into a disambiguation page, please stop. According to Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken, these edits, while seeming like a good idea, are actually not. Thank you. --NE2 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
New Christianity Template
I have created a new merger template, per the request, to replace both the Christianity and Christian Theology templates. I noticed your interest in the template. I would appreciate your comments. Please place comments on the template discussion page, so others can read them. Thanks. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Green March/Greater Morocco
Talking and reverting do not go hand in hand.--A Jalil 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt#Requested move revisited and consider participating. Thank you. —Mets501 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop this!
- Although you have been blocked for so long you don’t stop reverting.
- You mark changes as minor although they are not since they change the content or the meaning
- You insist on spelling errors but use this to hide/do content reverts
- If you have the advantage of being native speaker don’t abuse of this as a pretext to adjust the editing to meet your POVs.
Assyrians in United States
Well thank you very much for starting the page, I appreciate it greatly. It was kind of funny have all these Assyrians in __ pages without having the nation that has the largest deaspora Assyrian community! I will contribute to it defentatly, as I have many pictures from the Detroit community that I will upload. Chaldean 03:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop calling significant changes minor!
- Why do you remove the calling code from WS?
- This is not a minor change as it is content related.
- Always keep in mind please: WS is NOT the so-called "sadr".
- WS is the diputed territory and it is currently mostly under the administration of Morocco.
- If you want to call there you'll need to dial the Moroccan code first.
- Here is the definition of a minor change:
- "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."Help:Minor_edit
- Again, respect the rules please.
Block?
What's up with that? I was averaging two edits per minute with AWB. Why would you block me? I didn't make any egregious mistakes, did I? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Competing against who?. Yes I think you are misusing AWB. Your aim is to increase your edit count to the skies with AWB, changing China to The People's Republic of China, the USA to .... what's next?. That, and Reverting, and edit-warring are not an orthodox way of getting higher edit counts. You said 2 edits per minute? please check again the times of your edits, to find out how many.--A Jalil 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- What? Jalil, needless to say, the question was not directed at you, and your input was not helpful. I'm trying to make Wikipedia better by keeping articles that refer to the modern political state from directing to the ancient imperial civilization. AWB will automatically calculate your edit count, which it did at two. Also, I'm not competing against anyone. This is just rude and unnecessary. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- You have made egregious mistakes in your campaign to change all instances of China to PRC, and Russia to Russian Federation. If you're making two edits per minute, you are working too fast to obtain enough context to ensure that your edits are useful and correct; and your past track record shows that. Argyriou (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay I meant in this instance, not ever. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I got your E-mail. What the aforementioned said pretty much sums it up. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to be funny, but...
have you ever considered volunteering to be a science experiment? - Dudesleeper 23:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? Assuming this is a legitimate question (and I am), you totally lost me here... What do you mean? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I try to write in english :))
You, the group of the portal, are a magnific source about the saharawi problem! In Italy we have a lot of site and group about saharawi people. For example in one of these associazione El Ouali I have found the Ali Salem Tamek and Mohamed Elmoutaoikil's date of birth. Yesterday I have found a lot of photo in Public domain on Flickr about Saharawi's people and town. If you like I send you the links. You can find an example in Tifariti. I had sign only the link now. You find it in "fonti interattive" at "Una raccolta di immagini relative alle pitture rupestri". If it is possible I like to partecipate to Project Western Sahara. ciao, Franco --Zuccherinodolce 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Zuccherinodolce, contributors are always welcome - Please remember only that this is an encyclopedia, that all edits must be neutral and that it is not a place to militate for Polisario, any other organisation or ideology. Thanks and welcome wikima 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Michael E. Davis
Thank you for helping out with the article. Sdr 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Recent Maghreb-related edits
Hi, I am not really sure how this "talk" works but thanks for the note. I hope I can contribute in some way. Best regard, Laroussi 20:03, 1 November 2006 (GMT)
Joe "King" Oliver
I really don't mean to follow you around and this is all I'll say on the subject. However, after our discussion on Singleton, and after I called your attention to a similar title in the King Oliver article, I noticed that you went in there and did the same thing. You unilaterally altered someone else's article title without first initiating a discussion. I understand the naming conventions, but you shouldn't make unilateral decisions on articles that people have spent a lot of time on; that is, unless you want to get people angry with you. If you want to make a significant change like altering a title, then start a discussion on the topic and build a consensus. If you can do it, then the title changes. If you can't then you should leave the title alone. I've said my peace and now I'll leave it be. StudierMalMarburg 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
King Oliver article
Hi. I disagree with the move of "Joe "King" Oliver" to "Joe Oliver (musician). His nickname was/is very commonly used and successfully disambiguates him from any other Joe Oliver, whereas no one ever called him "Joe Oliver (musician)". If you feel strongly about the article should be titled as you moved it, please discuss on the article talk page. Otherwise I think it should be moved back. Thank you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've moved it back. Discuss on the talk page if you disagree. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions[9] made on November 9 2006 to Greater Morocco
- Thanks, in a way Thank you for your even-handed response to the editing on the Greater Morocco article. As you can see, I was trying to abide by consensus, rather than pointlessly edit war. I appreciate your reasoning, and I hope cooler heads will prevail there and elsewhere. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Indefinite block
To respond to your email, the block is only for persistent edit warring. It has nothing to do with the content of your edits, or your opponents' edits. I given a fuller summary at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Koavf (talk • contribs) blocked indefinitely, where the action is up for review. Dmcdevit·t 01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Morocco Mediation
Given that no one has replied to the mediation within the last 17 days, I am closing it as being stale. From a cursory glance, it appears to me that mediation is no longer needed. However, if this is not the case, then you are more than welcome to file a new case. Thanks. On behalf of the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 16:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Single-party state
Hello. Since you've made an edit to the article regarding Singapore [10], guess you'd be interested to join the discussion at talk:single-party state. — Instantnood 07:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Your redirect of Star Trek - The Menagerie
Since you appear to be banned, you probably don't care, but if you ever come back under a different account, then this is just for future reference... The Star Trek WikiProject has made a consensus for the naming of ST episode articles by naming them with their associated series, thus an episode of Star Trek: The Original Series has "(TOS episode)" in the name. Please don't make them "generic" by saying "(Star Trek episode)". Thanks. Cyberia23 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to provide some reference for the status of kiSwahili in the African Union? Why are you referring particularly to kiSwahili is if it wasn't covered from the term African languages? It seems that there was an effort to promote the language in the "OAU 1st Conference of African Ministers of Culture 1986, Port-Lous Mauritius. (...) This conference adopted two important documents: (...) Resolution N° 16 on the adoption of Kiswahili as an OAU working language. (...) Unfortunately: * the resolution on the use of kiswahili has never been implemented by the OAU, nor by any other African intergovernmental organization;" [11]. Probably, we have to distinguish what is going on in paper and in practice. In paper, all African languages (kiSwahili included) and Arabic, English, French and Portuguese are working languages. In practice, only Arabic, English, French and Portuguese are working languages - see for example the languages available in the official site of the AU. So, there was an effort to do the same for Kiswahili, but in vain.--Michkalas 22:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Teh Edge
I've poposed this redirect for deletion, since nothing links there and we can't catch every possible spelling error. Tikiwont 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Coat of arms of Western Sahara.png, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 14:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Unblock
unblock template removed per template instructions —Wknight94 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Justin, Would you agree with this being taken to ArbCom? Please note that the most likely outcome would be a ban on WS and Morocco articles if your indefinite block is lifted. Regards, Asteriontalk 11:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure *what* is being taken to ArbCom, but I'm willing to explore that. As you know, my primary interest on Wikipedia is Western Sahara-related articles. The coverage of Western Sahara has suffered while I've not been editing and that's not good for the community. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's not true and the opposit is right.
- The coverage on the topic has suffered when you were editing.
- There is, now, real peace among the community around this topic.
- There is no more war. And that's extremly important, for wikipedia and for the community.
- So if people want to re-write history, even remove reference sources to support their preferred revision of history; that is O.K.? Because it keeps the peace? Wikipedia started as an effort to produce an Open Source encycopeadia; it is a shame that people with expert knowledge and familiarity with various subjects are being excluded for social or popularist reasons. History is not a debating club, it is a shame when the majority decide the minority must be excluded.58.107.15.245 11:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest anyone interested in Wikima's vision of "real peace" takes a long hard look at the two competing versions of Greater Morocco. Justin has been on the aggressive side as an editor at times and quite possibly deserved a rap on the fingers (but I have yet to see anything that merited a life-long ban), but it is a fact that that page was completely gutted by Wikima and pals in his abscence. Same thing probably happened to many other articles, immediately after he was banned, I haven't had time to look that up yet. So, maybe Justin's way of editing caused harm in various ways, but it seems clearly worse without him (or someone as dedicated) keeping an eye on those articles. At least before, there was some kind of a balance of terror... Arre 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- What you say Arre, is completly wrong and an abvious big lie and I invite everyone interested in the topic to verfiy carefully the history of the article you mention.
- I had a long "discussion" and a long polemic with koavf and with you in the discussion page of this article (Greater Morocco) but I haven't change any thing at that time.
- It was S710 who did major changes in a way that we all considered to be most close to the wikipedia rules.
- When he was around, your were watching and you reacted only very timidly.
- If you were a good observer you would clearly see that my intervention have become less since koavf is not more around.
- You also would clearly see that there is no more editing war. So he was the source of all conflicts.
- And the only person that is causing problems after him, that is yourself now with the article of Greater Morocco
- Now you are abusing of S710's absence to get your pro-polsiarian POV version quickly restored.
- This is cheap and it is a shame!
- Justin, if you think you deserve to be editing than your case should go through the ArbCom as per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_process. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why? I wasn't banned, I was blocked. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it was an indefinite block. If you read the second section of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Bans you'd find that there's no much difference Justin. The block was reviewed at the AN/I by the community. What would you lose if you go through the ArbCom? -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why? I wasn't banned, I was blocked. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Justin, if you think you deserve to be editing than your case should go through the ArbCom as per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_process. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Location Maps
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:20 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Regions_of_Europe.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Regions_of_Europe.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 03:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Polish titles
This is fatal error. Polish titles have minuscules at the start of words (except the first). Capital letters are mistake. 83.17.226.74 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Middle East.png)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:Middle East.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 10:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Non-free use disputed for Image:G77.jpg
|
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:G77.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee decision - unblock and revert parole
I am writing to advise you that the Arbitration Committee has adopted the following motion: Koavf is unblocked and placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such. Any such violations may result in further blocks of up to 24 hours, and multiple violations (i.e. three or more) may result in longer blocks or the resumption of the original indefinite block, depending on the administrator's discretion. Blocks should be mentioned on the requests for Arbitration page."
In accordance with this ruling, I am unblocking your account. Please be sure to abide by the revert parole restriction contained in the ruling or you risk being re-blocked. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |