User talk:Xdamr/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:NZOSMObv.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NZOSMObv.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:NZGSM92WarObv.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NZGSM92WarObv.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superpower

You want references? He looks at:

I would not be insisting if he was false. João Felipe C.S 21:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh...Brazil, Italy, Russia, Poland...it's a tough bunch of articles to work on, but I hope you stay on for the sake of the factual accuracy of these pages. Some users added Nigeria a while back as an emerging emerging superpower, letting that stuff stay on is damaging to the thousands of people who read Wikipedia. By the way, if we can prosify Great power and source it, it should be ready for WP:GAC. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Cross

That quote in the infobox you have just placed in Victoria Cross is not supported by the link you gave. If you have a look at the second paragraph of the article you will see that the word "bravery" is not a consideration. Moriori 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC). OK, I see. How curious that the medal inscription says "FOR VALOUR" but the govt dept is still saying for bravery. Queen Vic might not be amused. Moriori 01:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South African History

Just read your comment in the Union of South Africa talk page.

The South African Act formed the basis for the Union in a legal sense, so I agree that a real discussion on legal issues being maintained in that article. A minor area of problem lies in the Constitutional Crisis as it is pretty much a big enough section to obtain its own Wiki article. For now Im going to try to work the "legal side of things" into into your South African Act article but I suspect that as soon as possible

Good luck with the work of Oom Jan. My major interest in pre-Union history lies with the model republic (the article is presently shocking but I at the moment am lacking in some source material. I'll need to go on a nice little trip to bloem and get my hands on Schoeman's book on Bloem (at least I think thats the author)

The preceding comment was left by Paul_Hjul

- When ever I forget to login i end up being 196.34.167.130 although its not a shared ip address so I really don't know what all is done with it.
Re: The South African Act. It would be great if a copy of the Act could find its way to Wiki Source. (Particularly if we can have full texts of the Act after each ammendment). Ultimately an article on the South African Act as an instrument is a very good idea, with a summarised exposition on the process by which the act came about [the Thomson Book). For now the Union of South Africa article is a bit sketchy so branching off is going to be problematic. Eventually though a seperate article on the Constitution should come into existance replacing the current link to the South African Act as the "main article".
This would effectively mean that somebody can bounce from South Africa (general article)
to South Africa History
to Union of South Africa
to Constitution of the Union of South Africa
to South Africa Act
Which seems to correspond to the depth of the informatio (the Union of South Africa is after all a historic entity). It would also mean that the current list in topics of South African history at the bottom of South African entry can be changed as follows:
History Cape Colony | Apartheid | Foreign relations | Nuclear programme
to History Cape Colony | Union of South Africa | Apartheid | Foreign relations | Nuclear programme
(eventually that should change a bit as well but ja one brick at a time)
Similarly a person should be able to go from South Africa
to Politics of South Africa
to Constitution of South Africa
to South Africa Act
The Constitution article contains a list at the bottom of previous constitution (it incorrectly refers to the union. I've changed that to refer directly to the South African Act article, and possibly the introduction of a Series - Constitutions of Southern Africa (I think covering the constitutions of the Region makes more sense because of the how the inter-relate)
Paul Hjul 08:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

For now Im putting a chunk into the Constitution section of the Union of South Africa. As soon as it gets big enough and

[edit] Pretoria and London Conventions

Presently the Pretoria and London Convention entries are seperate entries. The Pretoria Convention is cited as an International Law Stub, which is I think problematic because at the end of the day the Pretoria Convention didn't really have any long term international law effect. The London Convention goes by its long name and is an orphaned article.

Im thinking something along the lines of an article on the Constitution of the ZAR which has each of the conventions as a section.

Thoughts, (you seem to be the only active person interested in such things)?

The preceding comment was left by Paul_Hjul

Read your comment on my talk page: It would be nice to get a project going, not sure how successful it can be. The . I think lets look at what improvements can be made on the articles before doing a merger, but again getting the original text on wiki source would probably be far more useful than a seperate article on the wikipedia.

Im also inclined to think that we may find ourselves running into a situation where the articles become too extensive as an Encyclopaedia entry, which would possibly warrant or require the movement to a Wiki Book. But thats projecting a bit to far. The moral of the story being that maybe we should consider doing our collaboration in a Wiki

Anyway the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_South_African_municipalities project is trudging along so i'd be quite stoked to be doing some more collaboration work.


I've found a user that seems to be of great value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hayesstw

Thanks for the book reference - I will grap it at some point. I've gotten a hold of a fairly nice book from the local library of extracts from letters memo's etc ... leading up to the boer war.

[edit] Bulgaria was a great power

According to one user citing tripod. My 3 Reverts are done, I leave it to you now. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great power

I believe we can keep it split for now. We can think about merging them later. I don't think this article will become like "major power" as long as we keep academic and do not simply list the different good points of each power, which there are many. When mentioning good things, mention things like sudden economic growth and a major military conflict. The article should talk about history based on PIIR. For the present powers, some of the things they possess today should be mentioned, but only briefly. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, should we change the format of all the references from When the Stakes are high to the <ref name> format. This would mean we can no longer mention specific page numbers but would avoid having to repeat the same ref again and again. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
op cit. is good. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can finish off the past powers and I'll work on the present ones? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BRIMC

Thank you for your observations! As far as I know BRIMC is the term Jim O'Neil suggested to be used instead of BRIC, it hasn't just been "officially" treated by the annual report. But this is not the only case, the term was already used in the financial world. I am a little socked that you find a reason to delete the article BRIMC since it is perfectly valid. I'm not sure if you attended the various comments left by me in the deletion discussion, this user just nominated for deletion this particular article because he refuses to accept it is a valid term. I guess he thinks I "invented" the term by adding the "M". He vandalised the article Mexico (cause he was angry), he repeatedly reverted the info I provided (which is sourced and verifiable) just because he is a little anti-Mexico.

Well, however, thanks for you advise and observations. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The article can remain, which I do not find correct is the user:AlexCovarrubias to modify the texts that originally quote BRIC for BRIMC. [1] João Felipe C.S 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BRICS, BRICET

I'm not sure if you're interested in this. Well, the brazilian user Joao Felipe C.S., created and edited those articles above by copy-pasting the same information I cited in the article BRIMC, action that is obviously wrong. I have now corrected it, but it is just another prove that he's not editing for the good and accuracy of Wikipedia but for a personal obscure reason that I call "brazilian bias". Please check. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 05:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I've been on Wikibreak but am aiming to come back fully in the next week or so. I've got a very good book as well which has a lot of information on power politics but also includes a section on Great powers. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VictoriaCrossRibbon.jpg

To let you know, I created a graphic to replace this image. If it is ok with you, I like to delete this photo since it is under a non-free license. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask you again not to use the JPEG image since it is not a freely licensed image, and my image is in the public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC) My apologies there, you added a PNG image. Ok, I have a drawing of that too :) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree editorially here

Did you realize you deleted the image in this edit? The other terms are redirected to this article, and seemed like a good compromise way to not confuse the reader. They are all likely search terms, and have appropriately tagged redirects. It is very unlikely they will become articles of their own. Do note that all the guidelines give editorial leeway... they are not policy, and this is a perfect illustration why we do not handcuff ourselves in that way. There are reasons and exceptions that a guideline cannot cover. Best regards. // FrankB 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great power

You said that you had notes on the Great powers with which you'll do the prosification. Which countries do you have notes on, because now I think I might be able to work on a couple of the countries you haven't go notes on. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Finished India and the United States, hope you've got the rest under control. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Xdamr, I've finished Germany and thus have finished the rewrite, I am deleting the tables. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks!! Thankyou very much, I was in fact going to award that to you just now after deleting the tables and finalizing the great power page.

The Power in International Relations Barnstar
For your persistent hard work on some of the hardest and most controversial articles to work with on Wikipedia. It's been a pleasure working with you and you deserve this. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think leave it for a week and see whether people have any concerns with it, then we might consider GAC. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South African honours system

There's a very interesting article that will be of interest, which should have some information from South African orders and decorations merged from the latter to the former. - (203.211.74.39 07:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Emergence of the Japanese photographic industry

On this rather old edit of yours: I beg to disagree. Please see my (polite, I hope!) rant at Talk:Pentax (and please reply there, if you'd like to reply).

For the extent of the prewar industry, this kind of thing may be an eye-opener. For a single book in English, see Lewis, The History of the Japanese Camera, despite its many inaccuracies. -- Hoary 06:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great powers - multipolarity etc

Yeah, those were a little off topic and a little OR. I actually went to the contributors page and encouraged him/her to userify and expand it -- I think it could have a home in some article, if properly sourced. It just doesn't belong in Great power.

Thanks for the words of encouragement; after some near-revert wars it's nice to know someone appreciates it. Great work, by the way, on the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more CFDs on Awards

Hi Xdamr -- I'm still following up our earlier conversations on the Awards / Prizes mess. I posted CFDs for the super-cat structures in which "Orders, decorations, and medals of XXX" exists is Category:Awards and Category:Prizes, and includes Category:Award winners, Category:Prize winners, and Category:Recipients of formal honors at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 9#Prize winners and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 9#Prizes. --lquilter 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Approved for AWB!

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, alphachimp 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Xdamr! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. frothT 03:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)