User talk:Big Adamsky/Archive II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Enclave/Exclave Merger

What is the status o9f the merger? I see that people are adding more entries to both articles including duplication of exclaves in the enclave article and vice versa. Seems that it is getting muddled rather quickly. ((Shocktm | Talk | Contributions)) 22:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm confused

Why don't you have links to all the available encyclopedias on the Web on your home page? --ESP 02:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Which home page of mine did you mean? And which encyclopedias?
I'm suspecting that you are trying to be spiteful for some reason, or else that you think I'm someone else whose internet homepage you have seen... Please explain yourself and I shall answer your questions best as I am able. Thanks. //Big Adamsky 12:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I mean you no harm, earthman! B-) Don't mind my bad sense of humor; there's no malice behind it.
Your Wikitravel user page (wikitravel:User:Big Adamsky) has a list of Web-accessible travel guides; I thought it would be funny if your Wikipedia user page had a list of Web-accessible encyclopedias. But it doesn't, which is too bad, because that would have been nicely parallel. There's a good list at http://dmoz.org/Reference/Encyclopedias/ if you need some ideas.
Actually, now that I think of it, it's probably a bad trend to start; your Wikibooks user page would have millions of links on it! B-) Anyways, happy wikiing. --ESP 17:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Ahaaaaa, so you were referring to the WikiTravel user page I started! I'm glad to knwo that no malice was meant. It just consists of random guidebooks that have all been useful to me and my travel buddies on my various journeys over the years. I don't really reckon that listing guidebooks is tantamount to starting a whole "trend" that has to be copied elsewhere, though. =J //Big Adamsky 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm nostalgic abt the same cartoons. Dessydes 14:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated thanks

===>For editing this page I took out your UK reference, as the current UK is the same thing politically speaking, and merely adjusted its borders. As for Sweden-Norway, I forgot it. How did you find that page in the first place, anyway? -Justin (koavf), talk 07:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether certain successor states should most aptly be designated as brand new entities that have undergone an outright "resurrection" like the mythical Phoenix that arose from the ashes of its former grandour. Or, on the other hand, if is it more helpful to understand Serbia-Montenegro as a de facto continuation of the former state - one whose capital, currency?, army, and [for a while] name it inherited. The same would apply for Turkey, Russia, Colombia, Austria, Pakistan and other "rump states" or dismembered states, that have decreased considerably in vastness. I'm not quite sure just what I'm trying to say here - other than that a descrpitive definition would propbably be in order just below each heading. 8v] //Big Adamsky 14:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Btw, what does Koavf mean? [curious!]
Just FYI, I also have that page watchlisted... And I guess you're doing the same with my notes? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 10:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
NS, I do of course have your Notes on watch, but to my own confusion I'm also watching several thousand other pages (mostly articles), many of which merely made it to my watchlist because I had happened to make one of my ultraminor edits while surfing around randomly... I'll need to do some serious culling - time to kill my darlings! Muoawhawhawww... *pure evil* ;J //Big Adamsky 14:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
So, what are your own primary sources for updating those notes of yours? Are you a student or a army refusenik at present? [still curious!]

===>Thanks

  • As for successor states, in the case of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the Ottoman Empire, etc, the dissolution of the union caused several new independent states to emerge. With the freedom of Ireland, the United Kingdom continued to exist parallel to the Republic of Ireland. So, I suppose there could be different classifications for reconstituted successor states (USSR->Russia, Ottoman Empire->Turkey) and another for simple dissolutions (Czechoslovakia->Czechia/Slovakia). I'm not particularly interested in charting border changes for independent states (UK->UK and Ireland, Ethiopia->Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea).
Hm.. The Federal Republic of (West) Germany and the United Kingdom (of Great Britain & Ireland) could both be regarded as "former states", that is true. But they might equally well be seen as two examples of a continuation of statehood that has fluctuated in size since its inception (i.e. since their original unification). My point is simply that the retension of the name and flag of a state that loses or gains territory in my mind signifies the continuation of a state rather than the founding of a new state (or the restoration of an ancient state). //Big Adamsky 15:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do have your namespace pages watched, Nighstallion. They're handy-dandy.
  • "Koavf" means "King of All Vext Fans." It comes from a 1999 comic book called Vext, by Keith Giffen. In issue five, there was a contest, and I won it, since I was the only person that entered (it was cancelled with the next issue.) Since I forgot to give them my address, and the editor of the book left DC Comics right after that, I never got my award, so as a consolation, I crowned myself KOAVF. Not too exciting, but there you have it.
  • I'm still intrigued: How did you guys find this userpage in the first place? -Justin (koavf), talk 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    I think I incidentally looked for something in your contributions -- don't know for what -- and saw edits to an interestingly titled page looking a lot like my notes page. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 10:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Either that, or perhaps you used to have a direct link on your main user page. It's good stuff. Another such page for both of you guys to be watching is User:Electionworld's own page on national political parties. Enjoy. //Big Adamsky 10:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Neat! We could probably found Category:Wikipedia editors who keep notes on current issues of some kind now... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 10:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] maps

Hi Adamsky, thanks about the map :). I had a look for info about Traditional districts of Norway but I think this really requires local knowledge, or a map of them that already exists to use as a reference, but I couldnt find any -- Astrokey44|talk 02:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I can attempt this, but (given my 'wikibreak' ... ha!) this will take me a week or two. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback requested!

Hello again! Mindful of America and your contributions on geographic articles, I've drafted a 'provisional' article with definitions and maps of prominent entities containing America. I'd very much like your input on its talk page, specifically:

  • (1) Is the proposed article title sufficient: "...in/of the Americas", "Regions of the Americas", etc.?
  • (2) Are there any notable territories I'm missing, or are the definitions deficient somehow?
  • (3) Can you suggest a way to better render the maps? I've a vision of how I want them to appear (two columns on the right side of the article), but my knowledge of the coding to get there is admittedly limited.

Remember this is a draft, not public. :) Once I get feedback from you and others (over the next few days), I will place this as a legitimate article and include links in appropriate articles.

Thanks for your assistance! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello EPA. As you would have noticed, I was being bold and so I went right on ahead and made my suggestions experimentally directly in your draft page. I didn't really have all that much to add, it actually looks rather complete as it is. But as always: maps, diagrams, standardized infoboxes, bulleted lists, charts and tables are all stylistic elements that appeal to people such as myself (e.g. when seeking inform,ation from a textbook, webpage or newspaper article), and so large blocks of prose might rather be converted into these forms. Just a thought on pedagogical detail/style here...
Anyhow, happy wikibreaking, and do let me know if there are other projects that my attention ought to be drawn to! =J //Big Adamsky 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
TY for your input ... I appreciate it! I've tweaked and commented on your edits over there; feel free to add.
I'm all for consistency. I comtemplated putting everything into a columnar chart/table and or expanding the definitions, but I don't want to subjugate the article – intended as a primer of sorts – to possibly subjective, endless editing (that we're all too familiar with with the other geographical articles). As usual, I've gone to some effort to at least cite sources and rationale, and to create consistent maps for clarity. As well, wikilinks to the appropriate detailed articles oughta suffice.
I'll place it shortly and will be 'back' before not too long. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for advising, Mel. I'll make sure I take the time to familialize myself with the concept of "minorness" shortly. //Big Adamsky 22:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greece

Hey Big Adamsky, I noticed that you made an edit that replaced a map that a cartographer created and I helped to update with numbers for the Peripheries of Greece. By removing such map (and the "Local Government" section), you essentially eliminated a whole section that included links to main articles (like "Peripheries of Greece"), as well as cut out a map created by a fellow cartographer. Next time, I suggest that you put a request in to the map creator, or an entry in the discussion page before blindly replacing the map. For one - the map you replaced it with is harder to read and is thumbnailed, with no reference to the main article about the Peripheries. Would you agree? I went ahead and replaced the original map and cleaned up the list - Please, please leave it as it is - it is a nice reference for the page. Thanks! Rarelibra 1:10 1MAR06 UTC.

Hi Libra. The main article linked to in that section also features the same numbered map, which the text refers to with corresponding numbers. The only drawback is that the numbered map shows only one layer of administrative divisions, viz. the peripheries. The map that I had contributed gives also the lower level of local government, all in the same map. As for thumbnail readability, its size is adjustable, no problem, and it is meant for you, the reader, to click on it to view it in full size. Thanks anyway. :) //Big Adamsky 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, please don't think I am starting something here - the map you found is a great, detailed map. I just didn't think it was fair to remove the whole "Local Government" section which had links to the Peripheries main article. I moved the detailed map that you included with the Peripheries and Prefectures to the main article page of the Peripheries... I hope this will suffice! Unless we can somehow rewrite the main page edit of Local Government to include your map there with a lead-in to the more detailed map (and map numbers) on the Peripheries page... what do you think? Rarelibra 9:36 1MAR06 UTC
One other thing - don't forget that the map you are including is all in GREEK, and English users NEED to have the numbered map for the ENGLISH equivalent (since, technically, this is being posted in the English pages). Just a thought. Tell you what - if you rewrite the main page article of Local Government to include your map with a reference to more detail on the Peripheries page, I will work on updating the Peripheries page to include a more detailed map (with numbers) of the Prefectures... what do you think? Rarelibra
Yes Libra, by all means. Include all maps and improve any text if you feel like it. No prob. Thanks. //Big Adamsky 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that he already had a detailed map of the Prefectures. So I will rewrite the front page to include your map, and then add a small inset that he is missing about the prefectures. Rarelibra 2MAR06 21:18 UTC

[edit] Vexillology

Have you seen List of flags of Norway? Would you like to take a look and comment/contribute :) ?Inge 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I already have that page on watch. I have nothing major to add really, except that maybe Østfold ought to be sorted under the letter "O" instead of "Ø"? //Big Adamsky 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, thank you :) . I like to use the same alfabetical order as in categories. Since ÆØÅ is alfabetized last automatically in categories, I always do it in my lists. I am also happy that it coincides with the Norwegian way of doing it, and that it in a way emphasises that Ø is not an O with a /. Inge 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All well and good, but...

You are rejoicing in a farce. You know very well that the others are talking down to me, so you have decided to jump in and stoke the fire. Go away or stop harrassing me on Nordic-related articles. 68.110.9.62 03:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try harder not to assume bad faith on my part or assign conspiratorial ulterior motives to my edits or comments. I really dislike that. Thanks for understanding. (To answer your questions: No, I won't go away. And no, I won't begin to harass you). //Big Adamsky 03:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You must follow the Golden Rule in this matter, or face my perceptions of insincerity on your part. This is not the first time you have done this, so own up to your mistakes. 68.110.9.62 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You just accused me of harassing you and told me to go away, apparently after my rephrasing/removal of a personal attack posted by you(?). If you have any specific "mistake" of mine in mind, please explain yourself concisely and briefly. Do not post petty personal attacks here (or anywhere else); they are harmless but irritating nonetheless.
Also, might I suggest that you get a user account? That way you could start afresh and leave all your conspiracy theories behind. //Big Adamsky 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You've attacked me a few times and still upset because I improved the Possessions of Norway article and jealousy clouds your mind. You can just ignore me when you come across me, then we will not have these unpleasant talks. I will not do what you tell me to, so do what I tell you to. 68.110.9.62 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Well, feel free to edit or comment on that or any other article, but remember that it may be reverted or reworded. And, once again: try to keep your language clean and do not analyze other editors' motives. That's all. Good luck. //Big Adamsky 04:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: I won't humor you, but I cannot promise to make only edits or comments that will be to your liking.

So continue with the flamings and I will see you in hell. 68.110.9.62 05:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback requested!

Hi there! How are you? I'm swamped (hence my distance) but, if you get a moment, please weigh in on this issue/poll. Keep it, er, cool! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey EPA! Exactly, what is it that you're up to these days, swamped in relaxation or hard work/studies? Anyways, I'll have a look at those polls and see if I have an opinion on them shortly. =J //Big Adamsky 08:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm still on a wiki-break of sorts (mostly work-oriented), but I've been popping in and out when needed or compelled to ... hence my distance!
I'll weigh in regarding Svalbard in the coming days. On a similar note, I'm creating a map of Norway with subdivisions ... you previously requested this, right?
And the poll above is slated to close soon – I've yet to assert my choice – so head on over quickly. :) Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kabyles

Hey BA,

I'll check it out. The Kabyles are a sub-group of the Berbers. What exactly was the disagreement? Btw, check your email... --Khoikhoi 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But wait, why are there both ethnic group templates in the article about the region and the article about the people? --Khoikhoi 01:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Because it was argued that the article should be about the region and not the people and that the flag was inappropriate because it represents the people and not the region. So then I removed the ethnobox from the Kabylie article and created a new stub called Kabyle people. //Big Adamsky 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
But the ethnobox is still on the Kabylie page... (check your email) --Khoikhoi 01:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian?

In case you're from Norway, would you be interested in adding yourself to our category? If my guess was wrong, feel free to do otherwise, of course... :-) --Wernher 04:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Wernher! I'm not currently residing in grand old Norgeland (I'm a bit of a rootless cosmopolitan), so "from" rather than "in" would be more applicable in my case. =J //Big Adamsky 08:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hi. You asked me briefly about the 3RR. The WP:3RR intends to counter revert wars. That's all... it is by itself not the means to block vandals. More importantly, admins are requested not to take sides, so all involved parts may be temporarily blocked. So keep that in mind when you revert. It should not be considered a punishment though. For that reason, it is also not applied retroactively.

Regards Fred-Chess 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know; the problem seems to have faded now. But thanks anyway for your advice. //Big Adamsky 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khalistan divided region

Hi,

I see you've been adding categories for a divided region under Punjab, but I don't see why it would be applied to Khalistan. Khalistan is non-existent state without any consenus on boundaries. How can it be divided if it doesn't exist? I would appreciate your input on this issue.

Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You are most probably right about that. I myself am not too knowledgeable about the particular area, but my impression was that Khalistan is a value-laden term used to refer to the trans-border region of Punjab by separatists. Please remove the category as you see fit, its inclusion was not meant as anything more than a suggestion.
Thanks for contacting me on this! :) //Big Adamsky 22:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that nobody knows what Khalistan comprises :D The only definite component is Indian Punjab - the rest depends on who you speak to. Thanks for the speedy reply. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Denmark-Norway Flag

Thanks! Okay i gave it a shot, and This is how it came out! It has to be in PNG format though (i lack the ability to create complex SVGs, so i hope it's okay). I based the radios on the denmark flag as the hue of the red. If it's good i will upload it on the commons and place it into the talk page. --ThrashedParanoid★ 22:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's actually very good, and better than the "cleft" version currently on display here and here. I'm not sure which way the lion is supposed to be turend, but hey, I trust that it is as good as any, so please: go on ahead and do what needs to be done! =) //Big Adamsky 20:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey! sorry for the late response, but i've been busy and thought you would respond on my talk page I am going to fix the direction in which the lion is facing now. --ThrashedParanoid★ 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finland-Swedes & Finland

The same anon. is back again after some weeks of hiatus, inserting his/her POV, and doing a minor edit after that, to cover up. Just so you know. --Janke | Talk 06:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I'll take a look at it. As I stated on the talk page a while ago, I think the highly inflammatory statements about the "world's most pampered minority" needs to be followed by a general discussion on model minorities and the mechanisms and dynamics of majority-minority relations in general. :) //Big Adamsky 20:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish quality articles drive

Hi. I sent messages to some Swedish Wikipedians recently whom I had noticed wrote articles on Swedish topics. You were not off the top of my head a contributor on Swedish topics, and I probably forgot many others that have written great articles. Anyway, related to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 and Wikipedia:Stable version, on getting stable article versions for eventual printing, etc. So if you know of any "decent" articles, perhaps have written yourself, you can nominate them at Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board/Swedish quality articles. Or improve on those already listed there. Besides the featured articles, the quality on Swedish topics articles varies greatly.

Cheers Fred-Chess 16:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred. I cannot think of any Swedish-topic articles to nominate, and in fact whenever I glide around in here and discover interesting-looking articles, I hardly ever consider its prospects for featured article status. I just read and contribute. :] //Big Adamsky 13:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greenland articles

Thank you for your recent contributions to Greenland related articles, including the subdivision templates (you got that from Swedish wikipedia?). I've been considering for a while what to do with the Municipalities, please share your thoughts on the Talk:Municipality of Nanortalik. Jens Nielsen 08:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jens! Yes I, too, thought that the series of articles could use a template for administrative divisions, since Greenland is listed under administrative subdivisions of Norden. And so I copied the one from the Danish WP, however I removed the region South Greenland, which to my understanding is an informal region, but not a separate county (amt). I also created one for the New Caledonian provinces and municipalities.
In my opinion, since they are all stubs, they do not merit having separate articles to differentiate between municipalities and settlments/towns. One article is enough to explain to the reader that the name of the main town can also refer to a vast area of wilderness and includes smaller settlements, as well. Besides, if the municipalities were to have entries of their own, we would have to make dab-pages for every single name for the reader to choose. :v) //Big Adamsky 12:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps of languages in SA

Hi :) Yeah, feel free to merge the maps. I don't really know what that means, and I certainly can't do it, but if you think they need to be merged then go ahead. Will it still appear in the article I used it in? Joziboy 15 March 2006, 18:29 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Africa in topic

Any reasons to "restore frame"? --tasc 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi - well it just looks better (to me, at least) to have the content of a box contained within a border so as to visually separate it from the text of the article itself. You don't agree? Most templates follow this style, not because they must, just because that has been deemed preferable. //Big Adamsky 14:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi :). Well i don't think so. many templates are too big, and it's a good thing to give readers an option to hide/show them. This was the main reason to reformat to div's. but I think it's possible to reformat them in order to have padding, just i don't see such a need. --tasc 14:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Woah, I'm not sure I fully understand the exact meaning of all those terms - all I know is that it tends to help the reader if the article is well structured, both in content and in graphical apperance. And so separating separate sections when presenting information makes for pedagogical communication. =) //Big Adamsky 14:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, i'll try to format it according to your preferences. Hope you don't mind. --tasc 14:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds cool. See also this talk on template format. //Big Adamsky 14:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, what for <center> tag was needed? Didn't i noticed smth.? --tasc 15:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Argentine provinces box

Well, actually the template is complete, Argentina has no more provinces =P, so why changing it? I really like the current one =D BTW, I agree with your comments about Tierra del Fuego and the capital, I changed the template to reflect those. Cheers. --OneEuropeanHeart 23:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dano-Norwegian"

Dano-Norwegian is actually an article - that is probably somewhat controversial - about a linguistic phenomenon. I think you are trying to link to Denmark-Norway, which you can create with [[Denmark-Norway|Dano-Norwegian]]. --Leifern 15:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That article (and its associated dab-page) both explain the linguistic term and the demonym, as well. Dano-Norwegian means dansk-norsk, which also covers the particluar term used by linguists. //Big Adamsky 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Asia

We have an article called Southern Asia and if mentioning Southern Asia is important, then we can add it to the list in the See also section. But Southern Asia is a much more broader term than South Asia. Before the break up of Soviet Union, it included every Asian nation other than Soviet Union. Also note that this article talks about the Indian subcontinent too. By including Iran, you are contradicting what the article says initially: South Asia is often considered synonymous with the term Indian subcontinent. Even a 4th grade student knows that Iran is not a part of the Indian subcontinent. If you insist, I suggest the best solution is to split the article and have to separate articles on South Asia and Indian subcontinent because the article is becoming too confusing now. I hope you understand. Thanks --Spartian 19:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for commenting on this. I am unfamiliar with Soviet usage, but hugely aware of the UN subregional groupings of states and other entities. To me the article(s) are not becoming confusing at all, but if you think they are, I urge you yourself to clarify the text so as to help the reader understand any subtle difference, rather than removing paragraphs which would only serve to leave the random visitor wondering which terms mean what. [UN Southern Asia = South Asia + Iran & Afghanistan]. // Big Adamsky 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC) PS: I, too, am a Humanist! :v)


[edit] nuclear map

I have changed the colours of the map as you suggested to show different countries although Im still not sure on exactly which pacific islands should be marked because different maps give it differently - also some other things I wasnt sure of like the dot in the caribbean in this map which I presume is just a mistake, and also whether the S.African/Israeli nuclear test should be included (which I dont think was confirmed). -- Astrokey44|talk 05:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the newest map is great, I'm impressed for the second time here! ;) That runaway blue square on the external map you link to showing a location near the Lesser Antilles in the North Atlantic must indeed be a mistake, since the cursor text refers to an explosion near Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic. As for Pacific islands, I guess the atolls mentioned explicitly could be easily pinpointed, but open-sea tests where only a territorial sea is cited are slightly trickier to locate. But the question is, does it really matter? As I see it, the reader/viewer gets the general picture anyway. I have no opinion on whether the unconfirmed test should be marked out, but if so perhaps with question a mark on the dot? Oh and one minor detail for your map: Kaliningrad and Corsica are non-contiguous "fragments" of nuclear powers and should be coloured dark red and dark blue, respectively. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 09:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
yes I think I wont worry any more about the pacific islands since the main point is brought across- most of the french tests were at mururoa, there was a couple british tests and the rest were american. The question mark was a great idea and I included it & also fixed the details.-- Astrokey44|talk 00:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{User maps}}

Regarding this edit: The usual width for the smaller part of userboxes is 45px; having a few which don't conform to that standard make the boxes look rather ugly. I won't revert again, but I'd ask you to consider this. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that, NS (just checked the edit history...). I think my mind might have been stashed elsewhere while I was idling around doing random fixings. My reason for changing the size of the tiny image was that I couldn't get it centered in the field and also that I thought it was too small for such a dark and cluttered image. I guess it doesn't matter all that much. By the way, there are several other boxes that also deviate from standard proportions, most notably Template:User WikiProjects Countries. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 10:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was only talking about the width; the fact that some boxes have a larger-than-standard-height out of necessity is not that much of an issue, for me at least, since userboxes are usually stacked on top of each other, so that the width needs to be standardized, but not necessarily the height. Nonetheless, I've fixed it a bit. ;) I take it you won't object to me reverting {{User maps}} to fix the width again, then? I've done so for now. Thanks for your understanding, and no harm done. Take care! BTW, you might be interested in this...? Cheers, —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nordic Cross Flag

I was about to message you but you beat me to it :) Well, with that reasoning, I would say I'm generally satisfied with the revert but I still find the current order objectional. Which brings to mind, are you aware of any collation guidelines for Wikipedia? Leftist 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The only such guideline that I can think of is the Principle of Least Surprise, which states that one should rank, order and sort things in a logical manner for the convenience of the [English-speaking] reader. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 14:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that, but yes I agree :) Leftist 14:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Fiji

Hey, it's me again. You seem to know quite a bit about flags, so I was wondering maybe you could help out with the above article. There's been quite a dispute surrounding the actual shade of 'sky blue' that's supposed to be used on the flag's field but as you can see the current shade is closer to bluish-green. We've contacted most of the official avenues to get the actual specs for the flag but didn't received any replies. Any suggestions? Leftist 18:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North West

Hi again :) Yeah, there's a debate at Talk:Provinces of South Africa as to what to name the articles. I felt that it sounds really odd to use Western Cape Province, for example, since I don't know a single person who'd say that (likewise Gauteng, KZN, Mpumalanga). The only two which posed problems were Limpopo and North West. Now even both of those I don't think require the name Province. They are provinces, but just as countries are countries and we don't suffix them with the word 'country' I think the rule should be the same for provinces, but it's up for debate! :) Joziboy 23 March 2006, 16:32 (UTC)

Also, as an aside, I love the maps on your user page! Quite ridiculous the lack of similarity between wealth/global influence and population. *sigh* it's time we got ourselves an elected World Government :) Joziboy 23 March 2006, 20:49 (UTC)
Yeah I like those maps too (even though they aren't mine). I was actually just playing around a little when I added them to my user page, so not overt political statement was intended, really (but implied, maybe?). =p // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonial India map

Thanks for the comments. Could you clarify further on the flags please? All the five are the current flags and not of the previous era. Well, the map predominantly shows southern India and Sri Lanka. And thus I think we can live with country borders visible in the corners (as you would see, I have specifically excluded that mention from the legends). Nicobar, sure, as a Danish colony, but I could not find a reference to that effect specifically for the given time-period (and am still wondering why University of Pennsylvania reference excluded it as well...). Cheers! --ΜιĿːtalk 11:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian Jews

Could you keep an eye on this article? Some guy is challenging its factual accuracy based on the (wrong) claim that Judaism is just a religion. AucamanTalk 07:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied here. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion?

I created for all the commonwealth realms articles on the monarch of. See e.g. Monarch of Belize. I did this because every country has a Politics of series. In this series allways a head of state article is included. It helps to find your way quickly. It would be nice if these Monarchs of XX could be enlarged, but at the moment this is what I can offer. Now it is proposed to delete these articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monarch of Jamaica. Because of the consistency of the Politics of series, I oppose the deletion of these articles. Could you give your opinion? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scandinavian Peninsula

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version 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. > -- Omniplex 14:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that was pretty lame, Omniplex. Just discuss on the talk page, that's what it's there for. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 14:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Caledonia and French communes

About French communes, the rule on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) is to include the article la/le/les whenever this article is an official part of the name. It is not a matter of personal decision, it is just a matter of following official names as they appear on INSEE website or other official French government websites. In France you don't have the same kind of confusion in placenames that may exist in other countries like, say, Brazil. So if the French government officially says the particle is part of the name, then we use it (e.g. Le Blanc-Mesnil or L'Île-Saint-Denis), but if the French government says the particle is not part of the name, then we don't use it (e.g. Mont-Dore in Auvergne, or Rivière-Salée in Martinique). Do you see what I mean? There's no room for personal decision making here. Hardouin 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaans Language Monument

Hi. I've revived the discussion over at Talk:Afrikaans#Taal Monument, contending that the Taalmonument is indeed the only one dedicated purely to a language (in case you'd wish to respond). --Piet Delport 15:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Scandinavia

Hi there! I hope you're well; I'm still on a wikibreak of sorts, but work issues have mitigated somewhat.

Thanks for your note and request; I've a number of things to compile as requested (including your prior request for a subnational map of Norway ... very tardy!), but I'll aim to do all of these in the next couple weeks, if that's OK?

A focus of current efforts is giving form a function to a wikiproject for oceans and seas, entailing a consistent infobox with authoritative details and definitions (usu. from the International Hydrographic Organisation). Anyhow, your patience is appreciated; merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scandanavia

Hi Adam, how are you going? I have made Image:Scandinavia location map definitions.PNG from your definitions on the talk page. Its just a simple map based on standard wiki maps, but I think that a simpler map is better for controversial issues, maybe if it settles down it would be worth doing something more detailed. Also I am going to be away for a few days so I dont have much time at the moment. Regards, -- Astrokey44|talk 14:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn it: you beat me to it! :) Ah well. The map looks fine. I was actually gonna inquire about the propriety of including the Åland Islands, Faroe Islands, Jan Mayen: my references are non-descript regarding them. Anyhow, you can probably clean-up the map – i.e., excluding the colour boxes – and include a legend in the article instead (e.g., a la HDI) ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure Åland would be in the same category as Sweden, the Faroe Islands in the same one as Iceland, as Jan Mayen in the same one as Svalbard... Not that I'd have sources for that, though. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Discussion consensus is evolving towards having only two definitions now, so all the "optional extras" are no longer categorized in any arbritrary order. Åland is generally grouped in the same category as its mother state, not with Sweden. Jan Mayen has no permanent residents (everyone there is from "somewhere else", and is likely to be leaving soon, too! =P ). // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 19:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd strongly suggest including Åland with Sweden, but whatever the super-majority arrives at should be fine, I s'pose. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

ok I'll see what I can do about the map.. although Im not sure that there should be only 2 levels - Greenland isnt as often included as Iceland and Finland is it? -- Astrokey44|talk 16:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What of the Nordic Council? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I did the map based on the link you gave me - same name as the previous map, not sure whether to do 2 or 3 colours so I did both (see the revision history on commons if you want to revert to the 2 colour version) -- Astrokey44|talk 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melungeon

User:S9arthur has been controlling this article all the time and doesn't let other contributors add or detract what they deem as necessary. He will likely, do the same to you. He likes rv wars. Just look at the edit history. IP Address 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

He's reverting his warnings and getting snotty. IP Address 01:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Republic of Macedonia poll

Hello. After some quiescence, resulting from a conciliatory article introduction that I helped devise, the Republic of Macedonia article has been locked for editing due to intractable edit warring and positioning. (The current version is not the conciliatory version, BTW.)

Apropos, I've devised a poll to resolve the RoM issue. I'd appreciate if you could review it and weigh in; once done, I will post on the RoM talk page and disseminate. Thanks for your co-operation. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there ... any thoughts? The natives are getting restless and your prompt feedback would be appreciated. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey there: I am busy with real-world projects, but not as much as before ... hence my increased activity recently.
Thanks for the feedback; remember, the poll is still formative but I think good to go. Since there are literally reams of talk pages/discussions which concern the topic, most of which is rather circuitous, a succinct précis of the issue is necessary to provide context (hence the intro). Moreover, I think this has proved useful in prior polls. As for the actual leads, this one in particular, I'm not necessarily in disagreement with being upfront; however, recent article instability has resulted from an unwillingness or inability (intractable, I think) of various sides to accept what was a conciliatory version (with a wikified note) for weeks.
I do share your frustration – hence my partial withdrawal from the debate – but I'm not discouraged by it and am hopeful a poll will solve at least this issue. And as my edits at Cyprus/Talk:Cyprus have recently demonstrated, for instance, a modus vivendi is always possible without undue escalation. :) I look forward to noting which option(s) (q.v. approval voting) you end up preferring once the poll is properly/formally placed (imminently). Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I've placed the poll ... please carry over your prior comments and place them there and assert anything else you like. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in at the above poll. If you're comfortable, choose an option or two. :) Anyhow, I'll have your map of Norway ready in a day or two. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)