User talk:PanBK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Emersoni

Hello, PanBK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Enjoy your stay with Wikipedia!

Emersoni 05:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wombat

Useful additions, but can you provide citations for the facts you've added? A source for the "comparable to the business end of a toilet brush" quote would be particularly good. -- Danny Yee 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't -- I got the description (and the speed figures) from some paper-back book on sale in the Cradle Mountain souvenir shop in Tasmania. But I also saw a wild wombat really close (about a meter away) and can confirm the description's accuracy...

An adorable creature, something like a cross between a cat and a bear in appearance.пан Бостон-Київський 05:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kangaroo

Find me a reference that lists more than three species of "kangaroo" and you are welcome to add it to the article. Everthing I have read says the Forester is not a seperate species and that there is only three species of kanagaroo. This excludes wallabies and wallaroos as they are not classed as "kangaroos" and are covered at Macropod. The Forester is also mentioned at both Eastern Grey Kangaroo and Western Grey Kangaroo. --Martyman-(talk) 03:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, interestingly, [1] lists the two wallaroos as kangaroos as well, but, I guess, you are right overall. Eastern Kangaroo it is. How many "r"-s are in "Forrester", though? пан Бостон-Київський 04:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I notice some sources call the "antilopine wallaroo" a "antilopine kangaroo". The wikipedia as it stands has a seperate article on Wallaroos which lists the differences from kangaroos, so I don't think it is really worth changing. My encyclopedia and the wikipedia both seem to use one "R" in forester. --Martyman-(talk) 05:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Survivor-baby-wallaby.jpg

Hi. Do you have any objections to the suggestion of relocating the image from Kangaroo to the article on Wallabies?,,,,,<regards>Ariele 14:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No objections, but the Wallaby article simply did not have the "roadkill" section. It still does not. The existing section in Kangaroo applies equally to kangaroos and wallabies while the distinction between them is already noted as fuzzy anyway.пан Бостон-Київський 15:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great pics!

Hey, fabby pics on Okavango Delta - I think the antelope may be a red lechwe.

Thanks. Yes, it is a lechwe (not sure about the "red" qualifier) -- no one else can run so fast in the water :-)

Would you mind if I uploaded your pics to Wikipedia Commons, so they can be used on other-language Wikipedias? (I think this is permitted regardless, under the GDFL, but I'd rather be courteous and ask!). Cheers, JackyR 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised, other-language Wikipedias can not reference the English images directly. Should not en:Image... or Image:en work? I hate to create copies instead of links... I do plan to use the images in Ukrainian Wikipedia, BTW, so mine is not an idle question.
BTW, you may also like my other pictures -- take a look at my contributions.пан Бостон-Київський 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh ver' nice! About use by other langs of pics: I don't have a strong grasp of how pics work within en.wiki. But Commons is essentially a picture and media library for the whole of Wikimedia. Best practice is to put the originals in Commons and then link to all from there. I can walk you through it if you like (tho I'm a bit of a newbie there meself) - seems like you have lots of good stuff... JackyR 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. My practice has so far been to edit an article and insert the not-yet uploaded image. Then click on the "preview". There will be a "broken" link to the image. I follow the link and get an invitation from WikiPedia to upload the image. How do you link to an image from the "Commons"?

[edit] Uploading to Commons

  1. Go to Commons Main Page (from the link at the bottom of WP Main Page).
  2. Start an account there, if you can be bothered (will make communication easier, as at WP).
  3. Hit "Upload file" in the Participate menu.
  4. Hit "Choose file" to navigate to your own file.
  5. Fill in the rest of the boxes on the form. Ideally:
    1. click on "Summary" by the summary box; follow the link and copy/paste the contents of the "Template:Information" box (for help filling this in, click on the link "Template:Information" and read the template's Talk page).
    2. use the Licensing drop-down menu to choose a license.
    3. check "Watch this page"
  6. When you've done all that, hit the "Upload file" button.

After it's uploaded, you can arse around looking for categories to add to the page, to make it more findable. Start from the Category Tree: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryTree.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&m=a&cat=Topics or just type "Commons:Categories" into the search box. I can help with that.

If it's any use, take a look at my Commons User page: clicking on any pic will take you to the pic's page. I got the nice people at the Commons:Help Desk to check my first uploads, so my practice should now be OK...

Oh, what I forgot to say is, to link to a Commons picture from a WP article, just type the pic page name, the same as you do now (I think). Eg [[Image:Mopane worm on mopane tree.jpg|thumb|240px|right|Mopane worm on mopane tree, Botswana.]]

Good luck! JackyR 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jacky! However, I'd like to see the Bug 5283 resolved, so I don't have to waste my time and WikiPedia's bandwidth on reuploading the 70+ images I already have there. Please, vote for this problem's prompt resolution, everyone! пан Бостон-Київський 13:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't remember my username/password to the Media-wiki! I'm trying to find it out: meanwhile, I'll just have to give quiet moral support! (What you're suggesting is obviously right....) May be of more concrete use shortly! JackyR 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Not what you're after, but if you get impatient, it could help... [2]. I guess automoving has gone on the software To Do list, so could be a while. JackyR 23:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging Image:Group-of-Female-Lechwe.jpg

Hi, I have tagged your image, please change it to appropriate tag --Nivus(talk) 11:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] photos

Hi! Great photos, gratulations! But please, upload them on commons - they will be more useful for other Wikipedias. Greetings from Kraków :-) 193.25.0.9 00:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Targeting of civilians is terrorism

I understand. My main concern is with the double standard used for labeling what is terrorism and what isn't. For instance the quotes,

"If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."

and

"Israel is attempting to create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters by exacting a heavy price from the elite in Beirut. The message is: If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land."

confirm that the IDF is also a calculated use of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political. However, we are not seeing this being labeled as terrorist (the second quote is less threatening). Epsilonsa 23:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • "The quotes you provided don't outline a tactics much different from that used by NATO's forces agaisnt Serbia — justly. Turning a country's "clock back", however harsh a measure it might be, is not terrorism, because it does not imply targeting civilians — only the infrastructure. But this is a debate over whether or not Israel is using terrorist methods (and in my POV it does not). That Hezbollah does use terrorist methods (and quite explicitly aims to continue) is a settled fact (which you do not dispute), so please stop reverting my edits pretending they represent a POV. Thank you," пан Бостон-Київський 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Civilian don't have to be killed in order for an action to be considered terrorism. The threat and violence involved in destroying infrastructure is against civilian assets and therefore can be considered terrorism. Justification, however, is achieved by consensus, and no consensus has deemed Israel's actions to be terrorist. But unlike your NATO example, no consensus has justified Israels actions either. There are pretty much two conflicting parties of thought on who are the perpetrators and who are the justified.
As you stated, it's your POV that Israel is not using terrorism. There are many conflicting POVs out there that would disagree. There are even some who would consider Hezbollah's intention of making Israel not safe for Israelis justified. I was acting in good faith to modify (what you call reverting) your edit to make the section as neutral as possible, since the labeling of anything as terrorism in this conflict is a touchy and controversial issue. I was not "pretending" it represented a POV.
I put the details of my edit on the talk page, but nobody else has yet responded. What do you think we should do without a consensus? If you're going to re-insert "terrorize," "terrorism," or some other form of the word back into the passage, I won't stop you. I was simply trying to be balanced.
--Epsilonsa 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, destroying of enemy's infrastructure is a "normal" Act of War, not of Terror. All warring countries do this to each other. Acts of War are not pretty, but they are not terrorism. пан Бостон-Київський 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, in this case, they are destroying Lebanese, not Hezbollah infrastructure, which is not explicitly the enemy's. But I was just being overly tactful, removing what I thought could potentially be a heated POV item. Go ahead and re-insert terrorism if you want and if anyone has a real problem with it, they can post their concerns on the talk page and have it removed if necessary.

--Epsilonsa 23:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, Lebanon is a very explicit enemy of Israel. Lebanon attacked Israel in 1948 and (unlike Jordan and Egypt) is yet to make peace. пан Бостон-Київський 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note to me re:Hezbollah terrorism

By that definition, the Israelis are also terrorists (which I do believe to be true). Keep in mind the old saying, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's a loaded word, becoming more meaningless by the day as it's misused by the world's powers who want to advance their own agendas and are quite willing to engage in terrorism to accomplish their goals (but of course complain indignantly when someone dares call them "terrorist".) That's my story and I'm sticking to it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I allow you to insert the loaded term "terrorist" regarding Hezbollah, then you must permit me to do the same regarding Israel (and believe me, I can find plenty of references to back me up). See how that works? +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pademelons

Peter Menkhorst in A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia categorically states that the Red-legged Pademelon is solitary. The Tasmanian Pademelon is said to be solitary "but aggregations may form at favoured feeding sites". He gives no information on the Red-necked Pademelon. Thanks for directing my attention to this; I'll clarify the article. Frickeg 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/n/User_talk%7EPanBK_2c5f.html"