User:Mikkalai/artalk3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Tick

Is it possible to add this image to the ixodidae category ? If so, could you please do that? Thanks in advance. --80.203.59.54 13:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. mikka (t) 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Open proxies

Hi, could you please do something about the Republic of Moldova article? Anons (currently 80.179.227.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) once you blocked the previous one) keep turning up (whose IPs, when googled, turn up in open proxy lists [1]) and are almost certainly Bonapartian socks. --Latinus 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

One more question

About the Belarusian emblem article, what happens if the AID fails? What is the next move I can perform? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Mikkalai, I appreciate that. No need to apologize. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonny

He makes personal attacks again. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What a motivated guy!. --Irpen 20:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been figuring out what I did wrong, and I think I managed to track down the other problems and fix them. Thanks! Bz2 19:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Donald Knuth

Hi Mikkalai,

you mentioned Knuth's article about computational complexity of songs was reprinted twice in computer science journals. Do you have a reference (or two...) for this article ? I did not know about it and would be interested in having a look (and maybe add the ref to the article, if applicable). Cheers, Schutz 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

MoS Overlinking

I did find it at WP:MOS#Wikilinking, but I am not sure how Bobblewik influenced it. However, I will not revert your revert. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 05:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, need to apologize. I am thinking with you and I together, working on this, great progress was made. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Fisss

This guy is a nuisance. He is busily uploading copyvio texts all day, which I'm quite tired to remove. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The March (1945)

I see that you have modified this article and now refer to it as a Death march. While portions were obviously conducted under the definitions of a Death March (a deliberate attempt to kill some or all of the marchers), the entire march was really a retreat from the advancing Soviet Army. Regards Oldfarm 02:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I had not seen the Death marches (Holocaust) article. Regards Oldfarm 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor thoughts of Kvens

It appears to me that user-with-many-handles is more disruptive than constructive?

In particular he violates WP:OWN, harassess other continously, abuses handles, and abuses the talk page. I'd rather we use the normal Wiki-way of letting the article expand itself, and block the user in question for being disruptive, instead of having him continue edit the article.

His contributions are of a very small value, as far as I see it. During my copyedit the last day, I found the same material being repeated again and again, clouded by cryptical tone.

Do you agree with me?`

Fred-Chess 18:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bible und Muhammed

I have posted a comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible und Muhammed. It would be nice if you could take a look at it. Pecher Talk 21:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah

Hey. I saw your vote on this AfD and I wanted to challenge it. Why? I will show you. Here is where I explained it to Striver. In short, google search for the title of that article. You only get wikipedia as a result. You will find this for just about all of the hadith articles made by Striver. So, we must ask... why are we using this title? No sources are given for the title so we can only assume that Striver made up the title from looking at the primary source (often his only source in violantion of WP:NOR). I ask you to reconsider your vote because we cannot pretend to be a respectable encyclopedia if we are adding new names for hadith as part of the discourse. We regurgitate material about the subject by scholars in an NPOV fashion. When Striver makes up a title and we vote to keep it we are losing credibility... it's that simple. Yes, hadith may deserve places here like verses of the Bible... we are not a paper encyclopedia... but let's not let that cloud our vision and keep the hadith article under a made up title. We need sources giving us a title and commentaries on that hadith... not merely a link to the hadith itself. gren グレン 09:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonny

Check today's edits of user:12.26.76.73 and user:84.179.10.172. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Kven

Hi Mikkalai, I've s-protected it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mikka, please see this (from our "friend") and also this (from me) and share your thoughts. //Big Adamsky 14:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

AID

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Great Leap Forward and Decline of the Roman Empire were selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

-Litefantastic 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Coding by Comrade Reguspatoff

Could you please take look on this? There's no source, Google in English shown nothing but perhaps it is used in Russian. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 02:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fred cleanup

Hello, Mikkalai.

You have marked de disambiguation page Fred as {{disambig-cleanup}}. As I have used this very page to exercite my knowledge on the DAB pages Manual of Style , I wonder what are yours suggestions on what can be changed on that article to meet the styles? Thanks, --Abu Badali 17:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-romanian/Transnistria

in order to diminish the russian POV there do you have some information on the way Ukraine blocked Transnistrian products? Work in this direction not in the anti-romanian one. --Bidon 17:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look this evening. mikka (t) 17:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ukraine blocked Transnistrian companies

Ukraine blocked Transnistrian companies to export in Ukraine as of 11 March 2006. In these days this political construction made by the former KGB and sovietic people lives its last days. It will further unite with Moldova and later on with Romania in a United Europe.

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)

When you have time, please take a look at the page. Now they are going to replace the existing article with a new one, with goofy tables and thoroughly pro-German. As one editor noted, the new version "is also very German-centric. That is, most of the article is written with German intentions or German decisions foremost, and the Soviets are almost offstage in much of the writing. Some of the battle overviews conflict with the specific battle articles - this is especially true with the Kursk campaign summary, which differs sharply with the Kursk article". Unfortunately, as I don't edit Soviet-related topics, I'm not versed in the subject, yet it seems to me that the issue is too significant historically to be edited sloppily. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


It aint pro-german I have balanced it I made the test page I know what pro german is you should have seen the versions before and the edit war that followed. And there are huge diffrences with my test page and the locked one. That editor who said it is very german centric only wishes to glorify the germans and nothing else dont make comments unless you know the whole story.(Deng 19:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Test page is bad idea in this case. It will be waste of time to go line by line and trace all differences from the privious version. You have to present your changes for discussion one by one. You have insufficient reputation to have your veriosn accepted as a new base. mikka (t) 19:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about for months and months I have been fighting check the archives read every post I have made and learn and if you are not willing to do this then you shouldnt comment on anything (Deng 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Shestidesyatnik

I was looking for an article on this among different cats and haven't found one. I am surprised you haven't wrote it yet :). Please consider... Thanks! --Irpen 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

internet phenomenon

hey, thanks for looking around the Internet phenomenon. Just to let you know, a lot of these articles USED to have wikipedia articles, but they were deleted. Many times, they were deleted under the statement that "a listing on the Internet Phenomenon page is good enough." I can vouch for a number of the article you deleted as being very list-worthy.

Just wanted to let you know that "no article, no phenomenon" is not valid for inclusion on this particular list. If you disagree, then maybe we should talk about it on the talk page. I'll start off a conversation there.

Thanks!

Sparsefarce 00:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Newbie Question

First off: Thanks for fixing a couple of style errors in my Feathering article. I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and I appreciate my errors being fixed...I learn a bit about Wikipedia's etiquette and style every day. Now...you put the "unreferenced" tag on the page. I wrote the article entirely from my knowledge. I assumed it was common knowledge. Should I go and try to find references for each item on the page? If I do, I'm afraid I won't find any information that is any more valid/official than my own knowledge. Is this still worth putting into the article? You did not cite the additional piece of information you added...does this mean that only parts of what I have need references? Thanks again for your help! SearedIce 04:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainophone

Thank you for adding several links to this new article! Kevlar67 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Please consult with

Creators and contributors of articles where you perform such drastic deletions. --Molobo 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok seems appropriate if it won't conceal the information. --Molobo 01:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 :)

"Please keep in mind that the "cite reference" tag is not a threat to you, it is a reminder to all of us that an important element is missing." Yes, I understand...I was seriously just looking for your help. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was accusing you of something... Happy editing, SearedIce 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Fisss

This guy seems to be reforming, and yet the pictures he downloads look suspiciously like copyvios to me. Please take a look at the illustrations for his latest articles - Zamoskvoreche, Moscow-City, and Presnya. Thanks for your time, Ghirla -трёп- 19:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

New sock?

NapoleonBonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - what do you think? --Latinus 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Be careful though, as this one actually edits. They are all minor edits though ;-) --Latinus 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about really silly edits like this [2] - linking to a redirect to the same article. --Latinus 21:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
A typical pre-planted sock. mikka (t) 21:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry should be moved to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Bonaparte? This is what we did with Roitr's socks when he got so odious (Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr). --Latinus 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already listed bonaparte in Wikipedia:Long term abuse]mikka (t) 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Silicone holocaust

Good call on the Silicone holocaust article, it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Your reasons for deletion, although valid, are not phrased exceptionally well, which makes it somewhat hard to understand. It would be generally appreciated if you were to take more care in writting such explanations in the future. Happy editing. Bobby1011 02:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

user:Alucard sepetdalv

Hi! You have blocked user:Alucard sepetdalv. That user seems to be unhappy about that. He is asking for help from Meta-admins (meta:User_talk:Angela#Admin_abuse) and requested a checkuser check (meta:Talk:Request_for_CheckUser_information#removed_2006-03-19). This problem does not fall under the jurisdiction of Meta-admins or stewards. This is a local EN wikipedia matter.

Can you please explain to this user what his options are for appealing your block according EN Wikipedia policy and where and how he can do that? You can put it on his talk page of his meta-account: meta:User talk:Alucard sepetdalv Thanks, --Walter 15:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia

Your opinion would be appreciated here regarding the deletion of the article Serbophobia. Thanks, Asterion 20:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Excaliburo

Now user User:Excaliburo is also complaining about his block. See meta:User_talk:Datrio#this_is_also_my_case (meta:User:Excaliburo ) I have done on meta a checkuser for there edits on meta and Excaliburo and Alucard sepetdalv and there are using IP's form to different continents. Please be sure about what you are doing and inform this user how to appeal your block. --Walter 21:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hey you deleted all the pictures that I uploaded but I am the author of those pics, all the pics come from euro-caspian.com and I am the owner of that site. So please restore all the pics back to their original state. How do you want me to proof to you that I am really the owner? Do you perhaps want me to make a new page in that site with your comment in it as proof? Baku87 23:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Removal of Prod Tag on Infernal Machine article

Your recent edit of the Infernal Machine article removed a prod tag I had placed there. Did you read the Talk:Infernal machine where I had explained my action? Why did you not provide an edit summary of your removal as per the guideline on the tag: that is: "To avoid confusion, you are encouraged to explain the reason for removal in the edit summary."? I do not gather from your talk page arguemnts that you disagree that it is a probable copyvio but I understand you have not come up with the evidence that it is inddeed a copyvio. How do you suggest we resolve if not going through a deletion process. Why do you seek to make the deletion process more convoluted?--A Y Arktos 08:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The reason I placed the prod tag there is because in my opinion the article cannot be deleted as a copyvio. I had gone to do just that and there is in fact no evidence on the intenret that it is a copyvio. The orginal contributer has not asserted it is a copyvio. There is no web based text that matches it. On what basis then would you delete it as a copyvio? When you remove a prod tag next time, please read ther talk page and plaease provide a reason. The article must now go to AfD.--A Y Arktos 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo alert

Molobo at his trolling best. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Belarus

Why the revert? The section needs beefing up, a second link would be helpful for starters. Ksenon 17:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to "beef up" a summary article of the whole long history of Belarus by secondary details. This particular section is already big enough, in proportion to the whole history of Belarus. mikka (t) 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian jokes

Why didn't you like the joke about the KPSS? It was both Russian (in language) and Soviet (in its subject). And showed people's attitude toward the Communist Party members very well. May be it can be put somewhere else?

This is not a jokebook. There are thousands of possible political Russian jokes. This one requires too much explanation. the political section is largest already. mikka (t) 20:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Need help with a POV-pusher

Hey Mikkalai,

I really need your help on the Abkhazia page with a pro-Georgian POV-pusher. He's not Georgian (not that it matters), but he continues to attempt to add his own bias to the article. He has cited works such as "History of the Georgian people" and "Making of Georgian Nation"... See the talk page for more information. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

National Emblem of Belarus removed from AID

So, what can I do now since this article has pretty much no chance of making AID? Send it to peer review again? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr mikka, Thanks for your welcoming. Actually those images belong to IAG (International Action Group) Abkhazeti, which gave me authority to use them freely only for web sites. Please let me know if you need official conformation from them.

As for neutrality, we must not forget the facts and truthfulness of these conflicts. I promise to be fair, nutral and always use valid and reliable sources when editing or contributin anything to Wiki.

Thanks for your warm welcome and withing you all the bestNoxchi Borz 22:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

one contributor

Pryvitannie, Mikka. Just wanted to point this out: Wikipedia contributor Kuban coSSack's talking about dictatorial ruler Lukashenka (who massively and monstrously falsified the vote) and today's storming of the October square, when hundreds of special police arrested peaceful demonstrators, totally destoryed the camp, threw empty vodka bottles into the mess and videotaped that for Belarusan state television. Here's Kuban coSSack's comment about this police action and break-up of a peaceful protest, which took place at 3AM so that there would be no witnesses of their activity:

Dear fellow Wikipedians, do you understand that the only purpose of his contributions on articles about Belarus (such as Belarusian language, Belarusian history, Belarus, etc.) is to push Russian imperial POV and lies? Please, see history and talk pages of the Belarus-related articles. Should WP community do something about it? --rydel 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Romanians

Hello Mikkalai! I jts want to tell you that the Romanian estimation of USA is around 1.2 million. The official figures are suggested to be there, but the estimation are there too !!! If you already looked there, there are put 1.2 mil. Romanians in USA, along with the 367.000. I suggest you if you want more informations, to go here : talk:Romanians Regards, User:NorbertArthur March 24 2006


Bonny trolls again on WP:ANI. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Stewart

Thanks for the many Stewart entries on LoPbN, which i'll fold in appropriately. But i am shocked to discover that an editor whose name i've been seeing for so long would be so clueless as to do a cut&paste merge. Even if others had not, prior to your steps, irresponsibly removed multiple legitimate sections (whose absence should BTW have alerted you to look at the history, confirm it, and refrain from a destructive merge, if not restore them yourself), you should have either

  • moved the content, requested a history merge be done, and made sure that it gets done, or
  • request both the history and content move, and leave them both to someone else.

But again, thanks for all those names; i can find time to reformat them, but going around search for the Dabs deserving inclusion is beyond my capacity, so that part of what you did is just great.
--Jerzy•t 20:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It certainly is a problem, which has had some discussion. Reasons for separate lists:
    1. LoPbN IMO must continue to be strictly alpha-order (for people w/ both given and sur- names); for many big people-Dab pages, a good organization is to have sections for people having similar causes of notability, and some Dabs (Arbuthnot/Arbuthnott comes to mind) should probably de-emphasize exact spelling; conversely, it may be worth treating Schon and Schön in separate sections of the same Dab page, while on LoPbN it is impracticable IMO to do anything but interleave them as if o and ö were indistinguishable.
    2. Surname-first is necessary on LoPbN, but violates WP:MOSDAB and also IMO is almost always a pointless impediment on a Dab page.
    3. While WP:MOSDAB tends to encourage separating bands, titled works, and fictional characters from each other and real people, it is seldom seriously harmful and sometimes more convenient to do otherwise, while only real people can be on LoPbN. (This objection primarily addresses proposals for using transclusion in some way, to put entries for the same people on both a Dab and a LoPbN page.)
    4. A surname or full name cannot be a rdr bcz of the non-bio articles the Dab has to handle, but Dab pages that include people probably see most use by those seeking people, so forcing them to click into LoPbN (besides LoPbN having to have a less suitable format in several ways) slows down Dab'n-page usage. This burden is not limited to a single click: even a perfectly maintained LoPbN page with a perfectly maintained page-title-only lk requires a second click (on the ToC) to the needed section, and perfect maintenance of either page-title-only or page-and-section lks is a continuing process as new names are added. We presently have about 700 pages, and one experiment suggests probably only a third of existing bio articles have gotten their LoPbN entries. As expansion progresses, unmaintained section lks sometimes become effectively page-title-only ones as many section titles become obsolete. Much more often, a lk of either kind may turn into a link to an "index-only" LoPbN page, such as List of people by name: Con, requiring at least one click and occasionally two, to a page containing names, and a further click to the needed section. (I guess it would help some if a bot patrolled LoPbN What-links-here pages for lks from non-LoPbN pages, checked those for Dab tags, and offered to make (probably almost always accurate) changes to the Dab-page lks.)
The answer to the duplication problem may be bots to watch for differences among those two and the various descendants of Category:People, and build lists for attention of humans, or even maintain a database of bio articles and of Dabs that point at them, which could guide efficient maintenance efforts.
Thanks, that was a good question, and i'll probably put this part of our discussion onto a LoPbN talk page.
--Jerzy•t 22:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wage slavery

Excuse me, why did you revert my changes on wage slavery? The objection to that section had been on the talk page for a year yet nobody in that time has come up with anything to support it. I think it's safe to say it's not a serious issue. -- infinity0 20:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Higgs boson consensus vote

There is currently a vote on the Higgs boson talk page over whether or not to merge the pop culture references article with the main article. I noticed you've previously contributed to the debate, so your vote would be helpful in establishing a consensus (or, perhaps, a vote of "no consensus", in which case the problem will be referred to AfD). Thanks! -DMurphy 21:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ayatollah Khomeini

Hi, could perhaps watchlist this article and follow some of the discussions having to do with Khomeini's ideas on non-Muslims? I've added a statement from Bernard Lewis, but the name of the section has been changed and there's a {{verify}} tag placed in there. Thanks. AucamanTalk 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Compass and straightedge

Please comment. John Reid 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Привет

Kак будет "пожарная бригада" по-белорусски? Hе могу найти. Спаcибо. 195.150.224.238 17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "пажарная каманда", but I am not sure. I will lok up the dictionary `'mikka (t) 18:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

Mikka, at least read the discussion page before repeating the same change on the Transnistria page. Having "Romanian and Moldovan" in the 1989 census implies that they were counted as two categories which were combined in that table. I doubt that, however; it is more likely that the Romanian category did not exist or that the Romanian results were entered in the others category, in which case one could entirely ommit the name Romanian in that category. As for the 2004 census, it it probable that Moldovan was the only category available for ethnic Romanians, or there might have also been a distinct Romanian category and Mauco wants to confirm that. Meanwhile please, don't make any changes before explaining them first on the discussion page. TSO1D 14:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am with Mikka on this one. He's laid out his arguments very scientifically and certainly convinced me. If I can locate the census form and see if there is a separate category for "Romanian", then that sort of settles it. But I have not had any luck so far. - William Mauco 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

CT

Hi! Any particular reason you reverted my addition of "cock teaser" to the CT article? As I pointed out to user InShaneee, this was not vandalism but a clarification of a common term which I ran into while viewing The Day of the Locust. I didn't know what it meant, so I had to look it up, and I thought I might save others the trouble. Just FYI, I don't believe it violates any Wikipedia policy, as you are probably aware Wikipedia is not censored. Thanks for your time! MFNickster 05:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Crimean War

Take a look at the section entitled "From the Ottoman point of view". It looks like a POV fork to me. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Evacuation of East Prussia

Pls take a look at recent discussion at its talk as well as recent edits. There may be some BS there together with the useful stuff. My familiarity of the topic is not extensive enough and mostly is limited to having been read several academic reviews to the books cited. Your input would be appreciated. -Irpen 17:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Post-Soviet_states

Umm before reverting my edits read the explanation on the discussion page. (I even cited it in my edit summary) Then, try to prove me wrong, and ONLY THEN change it. --Lenev 00:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want something to delete, write an explanation first and ONLY THEN delete. the talk page was empty when I looked into it. Even better, wait for reaction for your suggestion of some disputable changes FIRST. `'mikka (t) 00:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

V. Volodarsky

Saw that you originated this article – thanks – and also the following here:

V. Volodarsky. I used to live at Volodarsky street, and never in my life knew that he was simply "V." mikka (t) 03:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
He is even Володарский, В. in Russian wiki, I fixed ru and en links. Vald 12:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Does the "V." stand for anything, or is it like the "S." in "Harry S. Truman"?  Thanks, David Kernow 04:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It was an alias and means nothing (at least I have never found anything). `'mikka (t) 06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I suspected as much. Best wishes, David 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A brick of common sense for you

For a biting deconstruction of the logical shell game used to support parapsychology, I hereby award you 1/2 of a Brick of common sense (the other half going to 67.20.18.127), the rarest and most sought-after wiki award. Raul654 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dylan likened list

The independent article is back. Please respect the consensus, painfully worked out in this article, to break out lists like that one in their own pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_likened_to_Bob_Dylan

It's been discussed on the talk page several times, and right now you're the only person who's showing any disagreement. Monicasdude 20:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


East Prussia

You are right in part about the controversy of the rape. Many of those women prostituted themselfs to Soviet soldiers. I shall find a document which is a complaint by Soviet commander about the situation, where he complains that his soldiers can't perform basic duties, as they are followed and harrased by German women offering all kinds of services. --Molobo 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

reverts of anons

Hi, bot driver. Please be careful when reverting vandals and ALWAYS check the previous history. In some articles there are swarms of vandals, whole stacks of them in the history. Your last revert of Sam was a bit careless. `'mikka (t) 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem that I haven't come up with a simple solution to. As it stands, if there are multiple vandals coming from different usernames/IPs, it will require human intervention to clean up. As it would have required human intervention to clean up in any event, I don't personally see this as a great loss. It would be nice though, to have Tawkerbot2 understand this sort of attack and thwart it. I hope to do this later. joshbuddytalk 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The god of Tawkerbot2 Joshbuddy summed it up quite nicely :) -- Tawker 06:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Photo

Hi, I was wondering if you could update your photo so we can see what you look like today. I understand your current photo is from 2004. Thanks. --Hamgyonense 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 Log Messages

I've changed the format of tb2's log messages to have both the user page and user talk page. I hope you find this acceptable. Please let me know if you have any other ideas or suggestions. joshbuddytalk 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the current log message acceptable? Look at [3]. Does this seem good to you? joshbuddytalk 18:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made some changed to the format. Made it considerably shorter. An exmaple: [4] Thanks. joshbuddytalk 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Belarusian language

Why did you include Belarusian language (7.04.2004) in the List of endangered languages, when there are 8 million native speakers of this language, it's the official language for Belarus (with 75% native Belarusian speakers) and there is Belarusian version of Wikipedia with 2600 articles. Хм... и зачем я пишу по-английски? :) --Alexey Petrov 05:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that stats right, that 73,7% of Belarusian people know Belarusian language as native? (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Белорусский_язык). If almost all parents know Belarusian, IMHO it's obvious that children will speak it freely, even without schools with main Belarusian language. Other sources for language education may be: Belarusian TV, Radio, Books, etc... - It's unlikely that all of them are already in Russian. Belarusian Wikipedia is a good example. --Alexey Petrov 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style for Disambiguation pages

Hello. For edits to disambiguation pages (e.g. Light Light) please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer yourself there and don't revert other people's cleanup. `'mikka (t) 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(Wow! Where's this hostility coming from?) Your edit is in opposition to at least 2 guidelines "2. Linking to a primary topic", and "4. Individual entries" (2nd item: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link..."). So I thought perhaps you were unaware that a style guide for disambiguation pages even existed. But now I think maybe you just don't care, or are even opposed to it. Which is it? Ewlyahoocom 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The hostility is from brainless and disrespectful revert. I strongly suggest you to think more about content than of form. If people start reverting each other only because someone didn't like word order, wikipedia is in big trouble. `'mikka (t) 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Brainless, eh? Thanks for spreading the WikiLove! Also, please don't make a controversial change to a style guide without at least a little bit of discussion of the Talk page. Ewlyahoocom 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

From Russia with Love. You loved me so, so don't complain. As for changes in style guide, until someone reverted it, I was in my full rights to be bold. I see you are in a serious need of attitude adjustment in many places. `'mikka (t) 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes made to the Tap Dance page

Hello. Why did you delete the external link to iDance.net? I feel this is a very dance related link, one that is potentially of interest to many lovers of tap dance. Is it a link to a for profit business? Yes. Does that make it less related or of interest? No. I have seen many other external links to businesses, so I don't understand why you removed this one. Please explain. Thanks!

We are in business of writing encyclopedia, not web directory. I am sure there are hundreds of websites with interesting information. The point is that wikipedia must provide its own information. You are welcome to add useful text into the article. People can use google themselves. `'mikka (t) 00:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Wiki is not a web directory, but for example on the Lindy Hop page there is an external link to Yehoodi. This is a for profit business. I think it should be listed on this page because its very dance related, but why not iDance. Whats the difference?

Yehoodi deleted. Thanks for noticing. That's the whole point. Why not this, why not that... Why not write 2-3 phrases into the article? `'mikka (t) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So its ok to write a few sentances in the Tap (or lindy hop) article with an external link to iDance, but not to place it in the external links section? That seems a bit weird. I mean, I don't mind doing that, and I guess that would allow me to explain what iDance is and what kind of resource to the dance community it is, but seems un-necessary.

Why would you want to have a link to iDance? Is it a well-known, established, reputable source of information with reputable authors, known in trade? `'mikka (t) 00:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats why I think it should be there. As a member of the Lindy Hop Community for 4 years I feel its a valuable resource to that community. You should take some time to check out the site, before you delete the link.

As it happens I am a dancer myself (not Lindy, but WCS, Salsa & ballroom) and I would like very much to have as much dance info available online. If you say that all I asked is true, then please write a good wikipedia article about this site and tell me when it is ready. lease also remember that for notability and verifiability purposes reputabe third party references are required about how good this site is. `'mikka (t) 00:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

PlainJane 00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC) I feel that the idance link compromises the NPOV tone of the lindy hop article, as idance is a for-profit site. Yehoodi, however, is one of the longest-standing and most important community lindy hop sites in america if not the world, producing 3 radio shows, numerous social dancing events as well as the discussion boad itself. I'm not sure if it is actually a for-profit venture. Having said that, yehoodi would perhaps be best served by an article on wikipedia than a link. In contrast, the savoystyle site (linked to on the lindy hop site), while it does have an attached 'shop' is one of the longest-running lindy hop history site, is well referenced (using academic and biographical resources) and the site's author is in regular contact with frankie Manning to verify content.


If an external link is deleted a day after I place it, I have very little incentive to spend the time and effort on an entire article, as all things point to the fact that it will be deleted as well. I mean I thought Wiki was supposed to be a community effort and a resource for human knowledge. I just don't understand the reasoning behing limiting things. I think an article with 50 or 100 relavent external links would be a good thing, more info, more sources for people to follow. Why this desire to limit? <unsigned>


What was said in the iDance link was very NPOV as it can all be verified. Honestly do you people even go to the sites you delete, or do you just delete them? <unsigned>


I the website is reputable, well established and referred by other reputable publications, then the article will not be deleted. If it is not well established and not known to anybody, then there is no reason to have an external link to it, even opposite: why would yoyu want a link to a non-reputable website?

50-100 is out of question. repeating: we are not link farm here.

By the way, please sign your posts. `'mikka (t) 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

PlainJane 00:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Please do start an article on idance. It's an interesting and useful resource - simply not appropriate as an external link. (btw Mikkalai, I appreciate the work I see you do on the dance articles ;) )


I agree, Wiki is not a link farm. Links to reputable, and REVELANT (being the key word) do not comprise a link farm. I can understand limiting links to random sites trying to improve their search engine ranking, but links to sites that provide a valuable resource to the community, thats a good thing.

In responce to my question have you even looked at iDance.net? Do you check out the "reputability" of a site before you delete the link? Also, I'm not a member so I can't really sign my posts.

PlanJane: Thanks, I think the site is as well. Again, I just don't understand why as an article and not a link? If I wrote an article I would be sure to include a link in the article. Whats the difference. Maybe I'm just new at this wiki think and I don't understand.

This is not the issue of wiki. This is the issue of wikipedia. We need good articles, not lists of links. People know how to use google. The main issue with external links is that wikipedia does not have any control over their existence or their content. There is nothing more annoying to click thru a long list of weblinks only to get "Error 404. Page not found" in the most interesting places. `'mikka (t) 01:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Agreed, Wikipedia can't control the content of linked pages, that is why I agree with you that random links from fly by night companies and non-estiblished sites should be deleted. This is not the case with iDance.net. It is a well estiblished, respected and reputable site. There are dance instructors, featured on iDance.net from all over the world, some (ex. The Harlem Hot Shots), have leaned directly from Frankie Manning. This site is well known in the Lindy Hop Community and should be allowed as an external link, as a resource for those who want to learn more about Lindy Hop (and other swing dances). There are other examples of links to for profit businesses on Wikipedia that also happen to contrubite much to the dance community. Ex. on the Rhythem Hot Shots page there is a link to the Herrang Dance Camp, a for proffit camp. I think its great that this link is there, and that people didn't get boged down in the fact that it is a business.

Also, who are you to solely decide what Wikipedia needs. This site is community based, as in a world wide community, it should not be your sole decision, it should be opened up to discussion. <unsigned>

If you care for the good of dancers "who want to learn more about Lindy Hop", write some more article text, which is what wikipedia for and what people are doing here. Adding links from one website to several articles is called spamming, rather than "resource". People can find many "resources" themselves using google.
..."Also who are you" and what is your interest in peddling this website? You wasted so much of your time already; you could have written two good articles instead and earn some respect here. Now, please go away and troll somewhere else. I do not "solely decide" anythin. `'mikka (t) 03:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The new image of Russian dolls is a photo I took of a set hand-painted by my wife, jimfbleak 06:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Master and Margarita English translation

Hi there,

Sorry to keep bugging you but I wanted to discuss your reversion of the English Translations section on the Master and Margarita page (I tried using the article talk page and emailing, but I can't seem to get ahold of you). Any reason why the self-published translation shouldn't be included? --KBehemoth 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered in M&M talk page. As for getting ahold, 1-2 days is not so long time. Not all people sit all day round by keyboard. Also, e-mail is not the best way to "get ahold" of me. `'mikka (t) 16:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
3 days. Took you under an hour to revert my edit. Replied to in M&M talk. KBehemoth 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Replied to again in M&M talk. KBehemoth 16:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewording at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

I'm sure that your edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) were with the intention to clarify, but your rewording changed the meaning of the statement. If you'd like to discuss changing it, please bring it up at the talk page. Thanks, -- Natalya 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking users

Thanks for reblocking that IP. I had checked the log, but forgot about daylight savings time, and thought that the one-hour ban had already expired. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. JDoorjam Talk 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp PR

Hello there! I remember seeing you contribute to various Holocaust-related articles. I have recently expanded the article on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp and asked for a peer review. I thought you might want to take a look at the article and perhaps improve it or tell me what's missing. //Halibutt 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I was thinking of some concentration camp infobox, with some basic data. What do you say? //Halibutt 02:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

New Orleans (disambiguation)

I moved the one link on this to the main article - it seems very poor form to have a disambiguation page with only two links on it, one of them leading back to the only article that actually links to the disambiguation page. Do you agree that it should now be speedied, or do you have others to add to the dab page? --Golbez 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"({otheruses} is back. If you are lazy to do some search, don't think you know everything)" Thanks for dropping me a note! Really, this snark had no point, you could have explained this to me just as easily as I explained it to you. Good thing you finally found something other than a redlink to go there, though. --Golbez 15:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Acarina

I just want to say thanks for all that help on the Acarina article (mites and ticks). Jonathan W 15:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Demkina RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Natasha Demkina, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

List of three-letter English words

I can see why people are typically revert disambiguations on that page (jet, rap)... but my issue with var is that nothing on the disambiguation page is actually a three-letter English word! Which I guess implies that var should probably be removed altogether from the list. There is also a Wiktionary link on the var page that does not list any English language entry for 'var'. AdamMorton 01:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your comments on my talk page, which may have been against the rules of protocol of this peculiar back-and-forth talk-page means of wikipedian communation, whadoiknowaboutit.... AdamMorton

Dendrophilia

Why did you remove half the text of the page? I'm not saying I disagree with your decision to do so, but it would be nice if you gave a reason in the edit summary. Thanks. --Nnp 10:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte

Hey mikka,

Bonaparte's socks have been extremely disruptive lately, Irpen and I spent all morning reverting him. Please block User:Iasi and User:Chisinau indefinitely - the proof is right here. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! BTW, just noticed Moldoveanu (talk · contribs) never got blocked as well. —Khoikhoi 23:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

long not seen

... :-) hope you are fine Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Subnational_entity best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Russian Joke

This is a hard page to edit, but I have to salute you for taking that particular joke out. (Rabinovich looking for obituaries on the front page of the newspaper.) I contempalated doing so myself, especially since I have seen the same joke in print made about Franklin Roosevelt (man buys newspaper every day in a NY subway, throws it out after glancing at the front page et c.) so it is not particularly illustrative. The challenge will be to find a better joke to replace it with, to maintain the joke/article ratio. --VonWoland 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonny again

217.153.35.82 (talk · contribs) - this one's pretty obvious. —Khoikhoi 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance on Kven User RfC

Hello. Would you help me write User:Fred_chessplayer/Kven users RfC ? The current way where one or more users are arbtrarily reverting Kven User will not work for ever. Eventually I think we will need some consensus on the behavior and reprotion actions to take. Thank you. Fred-Chess 08:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Check this article please

As a Belarusian editor, you might be interested in the article Freedom for Belorussia (II), which seems as anti-Lukashenko POV to me, but it's hard to understand what it says as it is written in bad English and I don't know these issues well enough. Please correct it and if it is POV then edit it accordingly. Thanks in advance. Burann 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

words to use in titles

Mikka, with all due respect, I moved the Fanta Alba back to "incident". There is enough bad blood generated by strong words in titles. The article can convey all the info to the reader about events and there is no nead to make judgements in the titles on what was "murder", what was "mass murder", what was "massacre" and what was a "genocide". In no way do I want to whitewash anyone or history in general. --Irpen 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

mouse edits

as far as i know, mice genes do not have garlic bread homologs ;)

cheers Justforasecond 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


sorry, mistaken identity! the guy after you put in the garlic bread remarks -- [5]. weird, i looked at it twice to make sure i had the correct person.

Justforasecond 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

List of sexual slurs/old

I must congratulate you on having the bravery to stick to principles and nominate this article for deletion. It's too bad that there is a separate, unwritten set of rules for sex-related topics. I nominated the article of a porn star, Asia Carrera, for deletion on the basis that none of her biographical information is independently verifiable, but everyone voting on the article seems to think that verifiability is negotiable. Perhaps the policy pages need to be changed to reflect current reality. Maybe it would be helpful to have a template that says, "This is an article about a sexual topic or a sex performer, and therefore Wikipedia's normal standards of verifiability do not apply." Erik the Rude 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir II Monomakh

Can we restore the article to its original title, Vladimir Monomakh? Old Russian rulers used no numerals, you know. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Monomakh is known as "Vladimir II" in modern academic literature, at least Russophone. During his lifetime, Monomakh was known as "Vladimir Vsevolodovich" and that's it. Numerals only add confusion, as Westerners, when trying to impose their Western traditions on Russian rulers, are often confused which princes to count. Some refer to Vladimir of Novgorod as "Vladimir II", for example. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ivan Poddubny needs translation.

Hi, Mickey (which I believe is the English translation for "Mikka"?) I know you're natively a Russian, so can you please translate Ivan Poddubny? Thanks. --129.130.117.10 19:44, 20 April 2006 [(UTC)http://www.wushucentral.com/contact.php]

User:Deutsche

A likely new sock of Bonaparte. Within several hours after I modified User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry, he logged in and started gratuitously accuse me of copyvios. He was eventually blocked for 24 hours but I hope the block will be extended. Please investigate the disruptive activities of 212.200.52.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), too. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 14:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

names of Russian rulers

Hi I'm Douglasfrankfort. I saw what you have written on User:Ghirlandajo's User Talk. And maybe I have some similar viewpoint with you. I think the names of those princes used in English Wikipedia may have some problems. In Russia a prince of Rurik Dynasty can be many cities' Kniaz, So there is no more reason to name a prince of "this city" than "that city", especially when we name them with so-called sequence, such as I,II,III. In fact Russian themselves never called their Princes that way. So I think we'd better use the system of Russian Wikipedia to name them: name-father's name + vich. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 04:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Хуй

Please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hui (Хуй) as well. --My another account 08:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

History of Moldova

Any advice about what to do with that little piece over there? Looks pretty hopeless to me. --Illythr 14:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Revier

You guessed it. In fact the whole world of KZ vocabulary deserves a mention somewhere. I once ran onto someone's doctorate work in my university library. The work was focused on the linguistic aspect of Auschwitz, on the specific pidgin German used there, vocabulary common to all KZ camps and so on. I think I might give it a try one day.

Anyway, I already started the series with the article on Muzulman (merely a stub so far) and planned to add revier, stube and perhaps some more soon afterwards. I see no problem with your changes, though a blue link might be a better option :) //Halibutt 03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bah, you beat me to it :) Great stub. //Halibutt 08:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When a reference link goes dead

With reference to your edits at Bystroye Channel, please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22 - Jmabel | Talk 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You were wrong!

As established by CheckUser, Andrei George is a sockpuppet of Bonaparte! Weird, huh? —Khoikhoi 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture deletion

Why did you delete the photo I put on Elvira Vinogradova. I stated the site I got it from (tvkultura.ru)Abc85 08:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Moskovskyy Pyasatel

You deleted my articles on my village and called it crap. You also modified my changes to Freddy Krueger and some other unrelated articles. I am enticed to suspect you are vandalising my pages and insulting me. Please stop.Abc85 11:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Russian Law violation

I didn't violate the Russian law by copying the image and placing it on this site. I stated where I got it from and this image is a governmental image as TV Kultura is produced by VGTRK, a governmental channel.Abc85 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please investigate

Please investigate what's going on with WWII-related articles. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fictional dates

The dates I am posting are not fictional but movie-based. Tina Grey is 15 in 1981 making her born in 1966. Nancy Thompson is also 15. Donald Thompson's age is 49 as in 1984 John Saxon's age was 49 and the film is set in 1981.

Jews

but jews label everything what against them with this word, so "anti-S" it be. From your comment in Talk:Joseph Stalin and anti-Semitism

Mikka, I think you ought to be aware that some, like myself, might consider this statement, in these words, to be offensive. Perhaps you would like to rephrase it. Vsyego dobrogo ---Smerus 09:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, thanks for your reply. Let me first declare my personal interest - as a Jew myself I dislike being typecast in the way your phrase suggests (or indeed in any other way). But, setting that aside, the implication of your phrase is that a Jew will respond to any argument disadvantaging him (or her) by claiming that the other party is motivated by anti-Semitism. I don't in fact think that you meant to cause offence - but I wish to make you understand that to an English reader, it looks that way. I am pointing out a problem of cultural translation, not making any sort of accusation. Bcë. --Smerus 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria stub sub-category

There is a discussion on Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion (scroll down to April 20, Transnistria) about the Transnistria subcategory stub. We got a 'Delete'-vote from Andrei George, a sock of Bonaparte, but I would value your opinion much more. - Mauco 13:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott Boorman

You wrote:

"such garbage stubs must be deleted on spot as a punishment for lazy writers. `'mikka (t) 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"

This is ridiculous. It's as if you're saying that articles that aren't perfect should be deleted, and writers who work on articles should be discouraged for not attaining perfection.

Let me remind you about the editing policy on wikipedia. That page is just plain and simple common sense. If we have brilliant, extraordinarily dedicated contributors, we might sometimes get an article where the first draft is a fully-functional article. The rest of the time, we get imperfection. Stubs exist to be expanded, which is a major, important way that the encyclopedia grows. Frankly, the article Scott Boorman that you nominated conforms very well to the Perfect stub article, except for it not having a {{stub}} tag on it. Mangojuicetalk 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the original version of the article was a perfect vanity article. Wikipedia is way past times when evrything was done to attract possible contributors. Now wikipedia is mature. IMO it is time to switch the attitude and demand responsibility for the text typed, especially in areas on noncommon (e.g., specialized) knowledge. `'mikka (t) 17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleting articles because they aren't perfect in order to "punish" the authors who made them, despite the fact that WP:EP (which is policy) specifically allows imperfect articles is at the very least totally incivil and at worst, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and a bad point at that. If you want better from authors, maybe you should just ask them to offer more information, instead of simply deleting their work. Mangojuicetalk 17:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)