User talk:Mojska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mojska, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Contents

[edit] Help

Judging by your edit history, you're familiar with Wikipedia beyond your edit count. Could you help us and explain your comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford please? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but "weak oppose neutral Support Oppose (che furbata...) " doesn't help. Please consider that this is English Wikipedia. What is your concern with this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've never "undone" any support you may have offered. Please clarify. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Blue

OK, thanks. JGHowes talk - 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anfield

You cannot just move the name of the article to a different one because it suits you, if you wish to discuss proposals to move Anfeld to Anfield Stadium pleas discuss them first at WP:FOOTY. NapHit (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but you have to discuss these changes first, you cannot just decide yourself they are necessary, especially as the article is at FAC, your actions, although in your mind correct, may jeopardise the nomination NapHit (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've brought this up at WP:FOOTBALL. Please head there to centralise your discussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You should also know that cut and paste moves (i.e. copying from one page to another) are not to be done; if you want to move a page, use the move button. If it won't move, take the issue to WP:RM. Regardless, the move was not a good one, as Anfield is correct per WP:COMMONNAME. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mojska, I oppose your actions in renaming 'Anfield' to 'Anfield Stadium'. I've never heard anybody refer to it as 'Anfield Stadium'. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

Hi, Mojska. It appears that you are reviewing articles at WP:FAC a bit fast, and possibly not giving a thoughtful evaluation to articles that you are Supporting and Opposing. Please remember that nominators put a lot of work in to these articles, so your considered review relative to the actual criteria is welcome. Review of six articles in fifteen minutes is a lot even for experienced reviewers. Also, you've been asking for "controversy" or "criticism" sections in articles, which is not a valid consideration or oppose. If you would like any assistance (incluso en español), favor de avisar. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL; external links are not a requirement for any article, should be minimized in featured articles, and are not part of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mojska, when reviewing four articles in six minutes, it is hard to do justice to the featured article process; please take some time to review WP:WIAFA.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mojska, I am still concerned that you are entering declarations at FAC without understanding WP:WIAFA or en.wiki guidelines. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Charming Man. I'm glad to see that you are now entering Comments instead of Support or Oppose; that's a better way to start while you learn the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Caledonian in the 1970s

Have read your comments but still feel that most of them aren't justified and that the tags should therefore be taken out. I've outlined the reasons on the relevant article's "Discussion" page. Please have a look at it before accusing others of 'vandalism'. Thanks. ttd_369 13:10, 4 March 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.36.140 (talk) comment moved from user page by Onorem♠Dil 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi user MOJSKA. Many thanks for responding to my message. Noted your comments. Please note that the computers from which I'm occasionally editing some of the articles in Wikipedia belong to a shared environment. Hence, as you may have already noticed, it isn't always me who is eding. ttd_369 14:35, 4 March 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.36.140 (talk)

[edit] Good article nominations

Hello Mojska, you may not be aware but good article nominees are not !voted upon like WP:FACs or WP:FLCs. And please try to remain civil, the tone in your note to Mike is bordering on unpleasant. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomical Netherlands Satellite

No joke, but sort of a test. As far as I can tell, the article meets all of the Good Article criteria. Note that the GAC say nothing about the length or depth of the article; the closest it gets is broadness, which I believe this article meets. Mike Peel (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley has been restarted. Your renewed support would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: DotA FAC

I was hoping you could swing by the article again and see if you might refactor your comments, given my response and the changes to the article since the oppose. If not, well, then don't. :) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is Defense of the Ancients is not DotA. All the relevant impact and recognition is in the current section. It's a lean article because as of currently it hasn't penetrated pop culture (at least in the Americas, which may be the issue). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Way Out (2004) FAC

With regard to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Way Out (2004), would you please be able to explain what you mean by "Objections"? The primary editor is willing to address any concerns but several of us at WP:PW are unsure of what you are looking for. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of International Mathematical Olympiads

Hi, I responded to your comment. Would you reconsider your opinion? It seems that you're used to the standards of WP:FAC, well, WP:FLC is very different. Lists are entirely different from articles. Additionally, as I say in my response over on that page, the number of references is not important at all. What is important is that however many references there are, the entire article or list is verifiable from those. Thanks, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured content reviews

Hello, I noticed that you have been providing a lot of comments lately on featured content candidates (or removal candidates). On the whole, your "votes" either provide no reasoning, or they provide reasoning that I, for one, cannot understand. It is becoming disruptive because other editors have to take time to review and/or respond to your comments. May I ask you to stop posting unreasoned or incoherent comments to candidate pages? I would be happy to answer any questions if you are unclear about the process. --Laser brain (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how to place the messages in archives. Please help me.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning messages on user talk pages

Hi. Per WP:TALK, removal of warning messages from user talk pages is permissible. I've reverted your changes made to User talk:Simon Cheakkanal. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning message

I don't know what the purpose of this warning message is. I have clearly not done any vandalism, and I am not even aware what you mean by a sock puppet. Please look more into any matter before you start throwing out warning messages. Nick Garvey (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad start

I think we misunderstood each other. I made a bad joke is all; and I'll work on your comments. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

D'accord, je peux chancher votation. (ok, I can chance my vote) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Bad to worse. What gives. Bite? I did what? Bite? Please explain. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You do know that WP:BITE (even if it applied) isn't a valid reason to oppose, don't you? Although I see that has been suggested already, if you genuinely feel you are a newcomer and wish to avoid being bitten, you should take a look at WP:WIAFA before commenting on FA candidates. Yomanganitalk 22:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are other motivations - valid, actionable points from the FA criteria - then list them. If you feel that Ceoil's attempts at levity are bitey then take it up with him on his talk page (or here where he's already attempted to start a dialogue). Don't oppose an FAC over a personality clash with another editor: such opposition is invalid, will be ignored, and looks like disruption merely to make a point. Yomanganitalk 09:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I was just tactless, I sometimes am, and I did not mean offence. Support or oppose, I don't want any hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cluj-Napoca

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cluj-Napoca, I answered to your comments.--Danutz (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I wikified those titles also. If you find further comments that maintain you oposing vote, please let me know. Best regards. --Danutz (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Warner

Hi Mojska, Thanks for your support on the Jack Warner FAC. I just wanted to let you know that the article was recently promoted. With appreciation, -- twelsht (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery gets promoted

Discovery Expedition is now FA. Thank you for your support getting it there. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ernie Toshack

Hi there. Can you check the changes I made? I added more alternative sources from two books and an obit. Thanks, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treehouse of Horror V

Moved feedback to Peer review please reply there. Buc (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please use the correct Peer review. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you keep undoing a new and relevant addition to the Team Fortress 2 entry?

"Added "Web Sites" Section, along with info about RED website. This section will expand, as there are at least two others in production. These sites serve to provide a backstory for the TF2 universe."

You don't see any value in listing hard-to-find, hidden web sites that help 'provide a backstory for the TF2 universe'? I mean , seriously. What's the point of having a TF2 entry then?

I hope you reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypergeek (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your two-word comment on the TF2 talk page. Please read it before re-adding any information. -- Sabre (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beverley

See Talk:Beverley - current consensus is for "UK Place" infobox to be used for places such as Beverley, and several pieces of information had already been lost when the "Settlement" infobox was used instead and without consensus. I've added the Town Council website into the UK place infobox as that meets the guidelines.Dallan72 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SandyGeorgia

Yah. I thought it was serious. =) --Efe (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Even me. BTW, thanks for supporting "Irreplaceable"; its now featured. For "safety measures", provide reasons why you support. Tony1 left comments for you and Burnigclean in the article's FAC page. --Efe (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I know. But be careful. Lots of people will drop you a message. =) --Efe (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the comment made by Tony:

I think no one here will disagree that we need to maintain very high standards of writing and verification for the huge increase in the proportion of FACs on popular culture. Otherwise, the currency will be diluted, yes? To do this, reviewers need to engage with the criteria, or nominators will be discouraged from doing so. While it's good to have people such as Mojska and Burningclean on board, they are providing absolutely no indication that they have engaged with the criteria. What are we to make of these postings? —

   Support - subdisfactory the graphic.

   Support Wow. Sorry I didn't comment on the PR. Surley deserving for FA. Efe deserves the nom credits also.

Now Mojska and Burningclean, and others I see doing the same thing in the FAC room, these declarations of support (or indeed of oppose, where that occurs) are worth nothing to the process without using your knowledge and expertise to critically evaluate the article WRT to the criteria. Sandy has—I think in desperation—pointed out the woeful state of the verification of this article, and I'm not sure that the nominator is yet convinced of the need for a thorough audit in this respect. I have picked to pieces a few sentences to show the density of issues in the prose, but nowhere is there a sign that the whole text will be properly copy-edited by someone new to it, to produce an authoritative and well-written article. No number of blithe supports will change this. I call on you, the experts, to take on a more critical role, rather than rolling up just to support-as-easy-vote in an area that you like and have considerable investment in. Please match your interest in the area with reviews that will prompt article improvement during this process.

Don't worry about it. Tony just wanted to set standards. BTW, if you have time, you can comment on "Baby Boy"'s PR. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ty. =) --Efe (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re

What are you specifically referring to? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I can speak Italian rather well, but I'm careful about using other languages since I've been warned to use English several times (I don't mind, really, I am perhaps more comfortable with it than with Serbo-Croatian;). What I meant is what warning are you referring to? I wasn't aware that I received warning messages (only notices), or that deleting them from your talkpage, for that matter, is a breach of Wiki policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I know I deleted them, what I'm asking is: 1) aren't those just notices, not warnings; 2) is it a breach of Wikipedia rules to delete them? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:TALK it is permissable to remove warnings from your own talk page. Indeed, it is considered an acknowledgement that you have read and understood the messages. Therefore, nothing to worry about here Mojska. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Natural Deduction

hi Mojska, I only added one reference to the article on Natural deduction, an excellent tutorial on Constructive Logics and Typed lambda-calculi by Jean Gallier in UPenn. What did you think I've added to the article? and thanks but I'm not Italian, only of Italian descent.Valeria.depaiva (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Valeria.depaiva

[edit] Methylenedioxymethamphetamine

I am an established and frequent editor of this page. I had already explained my intentions on the discussion page, and asked for feedback for which there was none. I made the obvious mistake of deleting a little more than I had intended, I'll fix it now.

Thanks for understanding, Kst447 (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mojska/Sandbox/Images

Hi Mojska, I had to comment out part of your sandbox because the sandbox was being placed in the deleted category, Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 2 April 2008. I'm not sure why it wasn't showing the current date. Spellcast (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty

Hi. I have replied to your comment at the FLC, but would like some clarification on what is original research? Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navenby

Hello, sorry to trouble you, but I just wondered if I could ask a favour. You were kind enough to leave some favourable comments about this article the last time it was up for FAC, and I wondered if you could cast your eye over it again and decide if you could give your support to it? . It has been through a Peer Review, won Good Article status and has been copy-edited since the last time. I've also had to remove a lot of the photos, to fit in with FA standard, so it doesn't look quite the same, and the refs have been tightened up too. (It has two supports so far, and no opposes, so fingers crossed!). Many thanks, --seahamlass 10:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lw-template

Hi Mojska, it would be nice if you include a timestamp in your last-warning template. This is useful to see when your last warning has been given and if the user has vandalized afterwards without having to look at the page history. This can be done e. g. using <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~ (or ~<includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~ if you only want to have the timestamp without your full signature). Also I think this template should be substed, because you may want to change its content in the future. Regards --Oxymoron83 14:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I did not try to write bad vandalist

I am very sory to remove too much subjects. Sandra Lee talking page get many rumors and false subjects that hurt the talking page guideline and I was protect it.

ChaoXing —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaoXing (talk • contribs) 04:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wavesplant

Sorry for vandalising but you gave me another warning after I had made up for it by undoing other peoples vandalising check my user contributions and I only deleted those other warnings because it makes my userpage look bad.

[edit] "Baby Boy"

Hello there. Thanks for the suppor. FYI, I reverted your edit on "Baby Boy". Please read the edit summary why. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Character Pictures"

Did I not put the write copyright thing in the summary for screen shots or what? Because I researched it to make sure screen shots didn't violate fair use on Wikipedia and found what I believed to be an appropriate fair use tag. Also I'm not new to Wikipedia like you said I was, if you look at my edits the first one was made over two years ago. Hoffy (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plural

Information - in plural in english - does not become information's' but remains information - noticed it on a template - take care! SatuSuro 01:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. In Italian "informazione" becames "informazioni", ... :-) --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SANT'ALESSIO

Grazie per le foto, nessun problema con il download ma io le vedo davvero piccole (120 x 90) e questo non rende certo giustizia alla bellezza dei soggetti fotografati!!! Ne parliamo appena ci si vede! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.184.156.36 (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

prego. --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very very quick to assume the worst

When I say I made a mistake "trying to move the "religious significance" section to beneath "history" rather than putting it under culture, next to sports. I cut and paste within the section when I should have done it while editing the whole page....This is NOT vandalism" I mean: I made a mistake. Do you make mistakes? Of course you do, we all do. Yet despite this explanation posted on the talk page, within 2 minutes you were threatening to block me, a new user. Try not to be so snide about others' mistakes, and focus on your own, and there won't be this nasty feeling in the air. 1equalvoice1 (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Quoting wikipedia: "Wikipedia articles improve not only through the hard work of regular editors but also through the often anonymous contributions of many newcomers. All of us were newcomers to editing Wikipedia at one time, and experienced editors are still newcomers, in ways, when they edit articles on topics outside their usual scope. New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with the policies, standards, style, and community of Wikipedia (or of a certain topic) before they start editing. If any newcomer got all those things right, it would be by complete chance."voice (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:84.122.175.235

What they are doing isn't vandalism. Please do not report people to WP:AIV because yuo have a content dispute with them. That is what dispute resolution is for. --barneca (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Reporting someone for vandalism where this is not the case, and therefore creating disruption, is vandalism in itself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

O_O ??? --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 12:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The reporting of 84.122.175.235 to AIV was unconstructive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm becoming more concerned, Mojska. I see you've also been labelling User:1equalvoice1‎ a vandal, and their contributions are not vandalism either. I've reverted your unblanking of their talk page; it is their talk page, they can blank it if they wish, and I know if someone labelled my contributions vandalism inappropriately, I'd blank it too.
Please read WP:VAND, and clarify what vandalism is, and isn't, before calling people vandals, and reporting them to WP:AIV again. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --barneca (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I take a little pause... --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 12:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Prize

Wow, thanks! Though, I must say, I'm not Italian, and the word choice is due to classical music's frequent use of that language. But thanks for the barnstar! --LaPianista! 18:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

LaPianista! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Remove

My warning message please, it looks like you're young and ready to waste your time on Wikipedia, that's great, just consider, review and analyze your warnings and edits before doing them. Also, please stop reverting the deletion I'm doing of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crojas79 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M-35 (Michigan highway) FAC

The article received a thorough copy edit from User:Finetooth. Any further comments at the FAC would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your 'smile'

Thanks for your 'smile', Mojska.

You say you have an 'intermediate' level of English. Actually your English is pretty good. Can I suggest one small change to your user page? You say, "I am on English Wikipedia since..." That sounds wrong to a native English speaker. The standard construction with since is, "I have been...since..." You may want to consider changing it. I don't want to change it myself as I don't want to edit another user's user page.

I hope you don't mind my suggestion. I admire your facility in a foreign language, and I am trying to be helpful. Prim Ethics (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

When did I vandalized Wikipedia? I split the list after the discussion with other editors. See: Talk:List of atheists. Please remove warning from my talk page. Thank you. RS1900 11:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remove warning from my talk page. Thank you. RS1900 11:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please remove warning from my talk page. RS1900 11:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't blank a page. I split it after a discussion. Thank you. RS1900 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus for your doing this. Discuss the matter on the talk page before making such drastic changes. Ilkali (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't remove warning, I will take the matter to WP:ANB. Thank you. RS1900 11:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Warning_without_any_reason. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for removing the warning and this. Once again, thank you. RS1900 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiLove

Thanks for the WikiLove. And thanks for the support on "Baby Boy"'s FAC. =) --Efe (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LSWR N15 Class

Would you care to elaborate on your opposition other than merely agreeing with the other reviewer's comments? Some constructive criticism goes a long way, and now most of the issues highlighted have been dealt with, it is time for another look over the article. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)