User:Chris 73/Archive 001

Wikimedia Foundation

If you find this page on any other site than Wikipedia, then you are viewing this from a outdated mirror. Please direct yourself to the real thing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chris_73 or one of the subpages there.

This is an archive of my Talk page. Do not edit this page! Please leave new messages on my Talk page.

(Old archives: 001 — 002 — 003 — 004 — 005 — 006 — 007 — 008 — 009 — 010 — 011 — 012)

History of swimming

I wanted to express my appreciation for all the detail you added to History of swimming. I also want to ask you help limiting the number of redundant links. Duplicate links in an article add little or nothing for the reader but can make the article much harder to read. There is an on-going debate at Wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context about the degree of linking that stikes the best balance for our encyclopedia. But regardless of your position in that debate, I think I can say with confidence that the overwhelming concensus is to link only the first occurence in each article. Thanks. Rossami 01:48, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Rossami. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, only here one month or so, and am still learning about the style. I will try to link only the first occurrence from now on. Thank you very much for fixing my entry. Chris 73 04:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Stutthoff

Articles about subcamps of Stutthoff are the beginning. Why you did remove any mention of being German? Cautious 10:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am looking forward to see more info in these terrible short stubs. About removing german: no particular reason, I though a concentration camp of the third reich makes it pretty clear that they are german. Plus, your link to german is a disambiguity page, and your stubs were overall quite bad both in content (nothing new) and formatting (ugh!). Please take more care (and use the link Germany or Nazi Germany, not German) -- chris_73 11:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris, it is nonsense. If there were a concentration camp in the place, it is worth mentioning. Especially, that in the 2nd stage it is possible to identify exactly, where those camps were located and add more info about each of them. As to Germanhood, during ww2 there were also other camps i.e. UstasheCautious 11:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, it seems you are adding more info to the stubs (e.g. Graniczna Wies). Thank you. I was mainly trying to fix a number of identical badly formatted stubs. Keep on working. Regarding link to Germany: No problem with adding links. I would prefer a link to Nazi Germany over Germany, but I can live with either one. -- chris_73 23:44, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Re: abbreviations. "Jap." is not an accepted or acceptable abbreviation for "Japanese." Generally it's not necessary to use abbreviations in articles (such as "lit." for "literally") anyway. Please use the standard "Japanese" instead. Also, please see Wikipedia is not paper. By the way, I've looked at a couple of the recent cooking-related pages you've started, and they frequently list a particular cookbook as a reference. If the things you're writing about are well-known or are common knowledge then they don't really need a reference, unless you've copied from your source. Exploding Boy 03:45, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I just went through all the cooking pages and changed Jap.: into Japanese: and Lit.: into Literally:. I also removed the book reference, since I used it mainly for suggestions, but the info is otherwise common knowledge. Guess I am still too much used to paper and its abbreviations. -- chris_73 04:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One more comment: it's not necessary to capitalize unless the word is at the beginning of a sentence (except for proper nouns, obviously), so you don't need to capitalize "literally" or the English translations of Japanese words, or the Japanese words you're using in the articles. Exploding Boy 04:22, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Thank you for checking all the Japanese literal translations. I'll do a bit more work on the Tsukiji fish market now. -- chris_73 04:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Parasite singles and Freeter

Your parasite singles and freeter articles are excellent. -- Tlotoxl 11:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

THANKS! Took me a couple of hours to write, glad you liked em. -- chris_73 00:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear Chris: Hi! I had never had the pleasure of talking with you before. Thanks for helping about the boxing articles and about the disambiguation page. As far as the Boxing photo I would also like to add that the fight is an amateur fight and professionals dont use the type of equipment seen in that photo. I think thats important to inform our readers of because many readers do not know that.
Well, its a pleasure to meet people like you! Thats what makes Wikipedia a great site.
Thanks and God bless you!
Sincerely yours,
Antonio Monster Ball Martin

Thanks! (2)

Tanx for the Google tip on Village Pump! Thats was right what I was looking for! Dobrowsky

Copyright Question

Hi Adam. I noticed you uploaded the image Image:Ac.deannekelly.jpg. This seems to be the mirror image of De-Anne Kelly's homepage. Since you didnt add copyright information to your upload, I was wondering if the image is copyrighted. Could you clarify the copyright info or source on the image page? Thanks a lot. -- chris_73 14:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All the Member of Parliament photos come from the Parliament website and are not copyright. Adam 14:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Best Regards -- chris_73 14:29, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vocabulary Project

Hi there, I saw you are interested in Japan and Germany, and English is not your first language. I guess I could write this in German as well, but you never know. I thought you might be interested in a project I am trying to start with some people from here, Wikibooks and Wiktionary. Check my page and let me know what you think about it. Get-back-world-respect 10:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but almost all of my free time is taken by Wikipedia, and I am slowly learning my way around here. I'll check back every now and then and see how your project goes. Good Luck, and thanks for asking -- chris 73 | Talk 10:26, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

vfd tag

Re your list of mediawiki tags to use on your user page, {{msg:vfd}} should not be used as directed in the opening text of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. It should be replaced with {{subst:vfd}}. -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I updated my boilerplate text. Best Regards -- chris 73 | Talk 16:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Burial at sea

Thanks a lot for featuring my article on the Did you know... section! Chris 73 | (New) Talk 01:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's a great article! Keep up the good work! jengod 01:33, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Ditto that! --mav 06:23, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Notations on Naming space poll

Good work calling out those fishy votes at the naming policy poll -- I was getting a little disturbed by the trend of people coming in and voting there when they obviously are not regular en.wikipedia contributors. →Raul654 06:53, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

It seems there is a small project going on at the uk.wikipedia.org, organizing people to come over here and vote for Wikipedia:Naming_policy_poll. I cant read a thing, except the headline and the link at the bottom of this page. We'll see in a couple of hours, when the locals there go online during/after work. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 07:51, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but it was only one message on a user talk page, not a "project going on" as such. Likely nothing to worry about. Angela. 08:10, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

In crypto class today, I'll ask Dimitrij (a Russian friend of mine) if he can translate that for me. I'm also considering imposing voting minima on the Naming poll -- the same ones we use at requests for adminship. →Raul654 13:14, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

PS - unfortunately, he couldn't make it out either. →Raul654 16:51, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I tried translating it with some links on the list with translation tools, but couldn't figure it out either. However, it seems that there was no ukrainian rush on Wikipedia:Naming_policy_poll (yet). -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 02:42, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Iraq casualties question

You recently edited the page on casualties in the Iraq conflict to say that there are numerous, widely varying estimates of the numbers of wounded U.S. troops, depending on definitions. Every source I've seen quotes (and seems to accept as accurate) the figures provided by the Pentagon. Could you cite any sources where you've seen differing estimates? And, by the way, thanks for adding that great photo. Neow 20:18, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Glad you liked the photo. I tried to pick one that shows how the remains are treated with respect. Regarding casualties:

• [1] states that more than 7,000 injured and ill service members from the Iraq have been treated at the military hospital in Landstuhl.
• [2]　Toll on U.S. troops in Iraq grows as wounded rolls approach 10,000
• [3] (Note: Site is POV against war): Compares different counts, has links

I believe the pentagon has an interest to count low, both for wounded (now called injured) and dead (probably only combat, not accident, combat related accidents, or suicide), so i added the varying estimates. Come to think of it, the death toll also depends on the definition. Maybe if i have time i'll look it up. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 00:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the great citations - I've added some of this info to the casualties page. Neow 23:27, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Hi, I've nominated you for adminship. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and let us know if you'd accept a nomination. RickK 04:38, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

YES, I do! Thank you so much for nominating me. I hope to be a good admin, and this would help me fight vandalism. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 05:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Andrew Zito

Could you please go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrew Zito#Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links) and sign your name to the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with RickK 19:55, 1 May 2004 (UTC)):" section? (And add anything else you think should be added.) Thanks. RickK 19:55, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I went to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrew Zito and made some edits, mainly a copy from the Vandalism alert, and a notice on his self reference on Joey Gallo. I also signed the page. BTW, also thank you very much for nominating me for Admin! -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 00:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

It was your work on reverting Zito and getting his vandalism noticed that brought you to my attention, since we hadn't crossed paths too often before. I saw your dedication to getting vandalism reverted, and checked out your contributions, and decided you were a valuable User. RickK 00:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism by 195.188.152.16

I have opposed your admission:
User Chris 73 has alleged 195.188.152.16 Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to [5] and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages.

This is a serious allegation of removing some probably valid information.

He should substantiate it.
I do admit (stupidly and I regret) replacing modemacs page after he reversed all the edits that I had taken a long while (and carefully) to add, which are informative and useful, and which are not in violation of any wiki-pedia guidelines that I can discover.
My contributions also cover several topics (as anyone can check).
He is unsuitable for admission until he substantiates his words, and until he stops taking a God-like approach to other caring contributors.
He caught no vandal !

Snippet of my answer on his User talk:Olive

First, I am glad that you got a login. This makes talking much easier. Secondly, I am also glad that you apologized to User:Modemac. Regarding vandalism: Adding links or content is no vandalism. Your actions as User:195.188.152.16 on the page of User:Modemac, however, was. That's why I alerted others of your actions, and you got banned for a short period of time. Back then you were a vandal. However, this does not mean that you will be a vandal in the future. Actually, I think your recent actions look very promising, and I am looking forward for your contributions. I removed the "caught vandal" notice from my User:chris 73 page.

Regarding the links you added: I didn't like an external link to a site with other links, so I removed it. I think that's what got you in trouble with User:Modemac in the first place,　who also did not like your link to a linklist. I just noticed the multiple reverts by User:Modemac, including your profanities, and tried to give him a helping hand, which got you banned and gave you some time to cool off. May I suggest that you pick one or two of the best links related to a topic on the linklist the rocksite, and add those to the article instead of the linklist?

I don't remember exactly. where I though you removed content. Sorry. I also checked some of your other contributions, and saw no problem with them, so I did not touch them (e.g. St James's Theatre and others). A few more notices: Do not edit the page of another user. Add comments only on the talk page. Also, if you would like your past contributions to your new username, you can do so on Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit, although this may take some time. Finally: Welcome to Wikipedia, User Olive. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 15:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Chris 73,

Thanks for getting in touch. and for your concilatory words and encouagement.

My action against modemac was wrong and stupid and I acnowledge that. However it was only taken in retaliation for his reverts without consultation.

I had taken a lot of trouble, and often gone back to change typos etc. I had taken great care.

Finally, The RockSite has so many options (lyrics, photos, tour dates) that the users may wish to pursue on a given topic.

Another justification is that links (even very good ones) often disappear overnight. I do try to keep a eye on these on a cyclical (or reported basis). Valid links do enhance Wiki-pedia.

Is this against Wiki-pedia rules or protocol.I cannot find it after exhaustive searching.

I am trying to complement your excellent resource.

I will remove my objection. I just wish modemac had adopted a better approach, but I am sure we will mend that bridge.

It is difficult to discuss things with an anonymous user. Again thanks for getting a login. I have to admit that I also sometimes get a bit careless when reverting anonymous contributions, and your user:modemac edits propably put me in a negative mood towards your other edits. My apologies. Regarding the links to linklist: I am not aware of any special policy, It was just my feeling (and probably modemac's, too). Just out of curiosity: Are you affiliated with "the rocksite"? Again, I am glad that things are improving now. Best regards -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 15:31, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Chris,

I run The RockSite. As I indicated in my posting to Modemac

Really you should not have been so high-handed and should have expressed your view-point in a more reasonable manner (in accordance with wiki protocol).

I believe that my site has photographs, content and informational web-links directly relevant to each page that I contributed to.

My site is a labour of love, not for profit, and not selling anything (other than a link to a posters and memorabilia site that is not run by me).

My links were directly to the page relevant for the particular musician or artist (not global).

I am not advertising my site in the manner you suggest, but providing complementary information that is not in conflict with wiki-pedia. I note that IMDb (The Internet Movie Database) has many such links and very useful they are too. You have not removed them (and I hope you never do otherwise Wiki-pedia will be the poorer.

It just like wiki-pedia - complimentary web info - not competition. You are welcome to take a look at www.rocksite.info

I will not move my earlier contributions, as I indicated some (those about NZ, Sky and tele-communications) were not mine. All future posts will be done under my user Olive.

Hi Olive. I am glad that things cooled down now. Thank you very much for removing your objections to my adminship. Regarding you adding links (as User:195.188.152.16) to your own site "The Rocksite": It's a nice site, but I still disagree with the links for two reasons:

• a direct link to the most relevant subsites would be better
• linking your own (non-commercial) site at Wikipedia can be seen as self-promotion

In any case, I will no longer remove links to "The Rocksite", so the situation between us does not escalate again. Some wiki users may agree with you, some with me, but I fear that the links will continue to give you some trouble. At least with a login this can be discussed before it comes to blows. Anyway, happy contributing and Best Regards -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

What about Steve Jackson Games

Wasn't the Steve Jackson Games Company a target of this operation or was that a different one?

Dear User:64.12.116.16: I have no idea what you're talking about. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:31, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hi. Regarding the dispute about the name of the province in former yugoslavia, could you please not remove the poll on Talk:Kosovo and Metohia? The number of reverts alone should show that this is an important question, which, by the way, is all over wikipedia for similar problems. Check for example the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll for a number of cities, Kiev/Kyiv being the hottest dispute. Also, on the Village pump you listed Wikipedia:Naming conventions as a source, which recomends to use the most common name, not necessarily the local official name. IMHO this would be Kosovo. Others, of course, may have a different opinion, which is why there is a poll in the first place. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Chris, I see that you are good-intentioned, but you have been tricked. Current name disputes are nothing like this. They revolve around which English variant of the name of a particular place (Kiev/Kyiv, Bombai/Mumbai, Mecca/Mekkah etc.) should be accepted and not about which placename should be accepted. To create a paralell with this case, it would be OK to discuss whether to name the article "Kosovo and Metohia", "Kosovo and Metohiya" or "Kosovo and Metohija". In a few cases (Sea of Korea/Japan) there is discussion about which of names should be accepted, but these are international entities, having different names in different states, which is not the case here. The fact that "Kosovo" is the most common name in English of "Косово" is correct but not quite important - the most common name of "Косово и Метохија" is "Kosovo and Metohia". I will not remove the poll again, but I have no intention of respecting it. Nikola 19:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, but to give you a counterexample, Germany is officially called Federal Republic of Germany, but the page is located at Germany, and is called Germany throughout the article, except for the intro and one sentence about the splitting into two germanies. Similarly, Switzerland would be Swiss Confederation, Bulgaria would be Republic of Bulgaria, etc. Pick a country, and you'll probably find an official version that differs from the common name. Besides, Kosovo and Metohia sounds to me like there are two provinces, like Texas and California. The poll also seems to be so far unanimous for Kosovo. I hope this won't turn into an edit war. -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

It's unimportant: Kosovo and Metohia is officially called "Autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohia". I hope that you realise the difference between these cases. There are more such cases: Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Trinidad and Tobago etc. They all seem like two somethings, yet their names are preserved. Voting is unanimous because I refuse to lower to Dori's level. I could easily get a few Serbian users, Russian users and few more people I know to counter it and make it indecisive at best. I don't want to do it. If someone tries to move the page (and storm over disambig which is now at Kosovo) this will turn into an edit war. Nikola 06:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

(snipped some profanity by User:Andrew Zito)

Um, okay. ANYWAY, the practice of using a short form for a nation or a state in place of the full, given title has a long precedent. If you look at any entry in the the CIA's world factbook you'll notice that they include four versions of the name of each county. In the case of Andorra:

Country name:

• conventional long form: Principality of Andorra
• conventional short form: Andorra
• local short form: Andorra
• local long form: Principat d'Andorra

and they always use the conventional short form for their entries. I know Wikipedia convention is to use the longest form possible for article titles, but in the cases of nation states using at least a redirect for the conventional short form is advisable. ~ clarknova

Clark, "Kosovo and Metohia" is the short form.

• conventional long form: Autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohia
• conventional short form: Kosovo and Metohia
• local short form: Косово и Метохија
• local long form: Аутономна покрајина Косово и Метохија
  

Nikola 00:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Requested pictures cleanup

Great work on cleaning up Wikipedia:Requested pictures! It's much nicer to have listed specific articles in need of illustration, rather than the catch-all requests that were there before. Thanks for taking the time to do so. -- Wapcaplet 04:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually enjoyed fixing that mess. -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:50, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the policy on requested pictures and made a note on the talk page that requests should be removed when they're fulfilled (and listed on fulfilled picture requests), for the sake of keeping the page as uncluttered as possible. Thoughts? -- Wapcaplet 03:15, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too. My though was to leave the "fulfilled" note there for a few days, so people feel good about it, and then remove it later. There is also a page Wikipedia:Fulfilled picture requests, but that looks pretty unused and unstructured. Either way is fine by me. -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela. 07:07, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, Chris. Cribcage 07:15, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations! I voted for you :) Avala 11:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much, RickK, Maximus Rex, Dori, Cecropia, Angela, theresa knott, Meelar, Graham  :), Danny, Decumanus, Guanaco, pir, Michael Snow, jengod, Warofdreams, Avala, and also to Olive and all other users for your support! -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:45, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Anthony Lambton

As the two articles were empty/stubs with no pages linking to them I thought they were candidates for deletion, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered you and redirected myself. Sorry. garryq 18:52, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Hey, no problem at all. I thought the short forms may be useful as redirects, for exampel if somebody types in "Anthony Lambton" in the search box. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested pictures: Hats

Thanks for all those great hat photos. :) fabiform | talk 14:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. Just felt like cleaning up the Wikipedia:Requested pictures page. It's amazing what you can find if you search Google for .gov sites for example for Hard Hats. Then you just have to pick a good one and check if it is public domain. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks also for formatting the hat-pages. I just quickly put the pictures on the pages since i did not know if there is a special format. -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I always forget about those .gov sites, it still seems strange to me that the US government doesn't hold copyrights. Oh and the format isn't special exactly, it's just to shove the msg: box out of the way. I'm looking forward to the category system, we'll be able to replace a lot of these boxes then and not have to mess around with the formatting all the time. :) fabiform | talk 10:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Kosovo 2

Hi Dori. I though you moved the Kosovo page. But a bit later it was back at Kosovo and Metohia, so I moved it again. Hope that was in your intention. Best regards, -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:35, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

The vote was for moving the article to Kosovo so that's where I moved it. Nikola is disregarding the community consensus and deciding it should stay at Kosovo and Metohia. Dori | Talk 17:40, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. Community consensus is for Kosovo. Did you have to move the page a third time now? Who is moving them back? Since Nicola is not an admin, he shouldn't be able to do that. -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it twice to Kosovo. I don't know who's moving it back, haven't checked. Dori | Talk 04:01, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of User:24.45.99.191

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User:24.45.99.191

Sorry, but it's not clear from that on what basis you deleted. Did I miss something? Martin 00:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Martin. A lot of anonymous user pages were listed on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions by user:Guanaco (see [4]), citing case #13 of the Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion rules. I also checked the What links here for MediaWiki:Delete, and deleted some other pages with msg:delete, including User:24.45.99.191. I assumed this was the right thing to do, but if I am mistaken then please do not hesitate to restore the page. I am not very familiar with the User:Paul Vogel issue, so I don't know if there is a special reason for the existence of the page. Let me know what you think. -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I think I will request undelete on VfU.

Sweetheart

Did you remember a while ago when you put a brief description of a company called Sweetheart?? Note that Sweetheart is a dis-ambiguation page, and there is a ghost-link to the company. Do you know enough about the company to create a detailed article for it?? (I do not.) Just click on the ghost-link. 66.245.17.98 01:08, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know much about the company except that it exists. The current status of the disambig page is fine with me. Thanks for the notice, though. -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Cut and Paste to Move

I appreciate your recent work on Taurus, et al, and Kosovo, et al. I may have a high number of edits, but as I've said in other places, A) I think some people over-value that stat, and B) it is mostly because I'm currently unemployed (which changes, at least temporarily, 6/1 [yeah!]), and because I do a lot of reverts and cleanup doing RC patrol, and a lot of cleanup doing New Pages patrol. If there was a page listing WPian contribs by # of bytes, I'd be much lower. You've been here longer than me, which in my mind is a more significant factor. Niteowlneils 17:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Massivly out of format, and I cannot fix it, speedy delete?

Hi Paulin. Regarding Irwin Shaw, Sieur de Maisonneuve, and Paul Chomedey, sieur de Maisonneuve (1612-1676), seem to be OK to me. I removed the speedy deletion notice. Maybe you can list similar pages at Wikipedia:Cleanup? U-884 is borderline, and i am not sure if it should be deleted or rescued. Anyway, happy editing and best regards, -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I may have gone overboard on the speedy delete thing, but gee, EVERY SINGLE ONE of this contributor's articles are borderline gruesome. I appreciate your taking the time to look at them. PaulinSaudi 11:54, 12 May 2004 (UTC)]]

I agree, it's annoying if a newbie contributes totally unformatted stuff, but that's how most newbies start. In this case, however, the content seems to be stolen from all over the web. Irwin Shaw, for example, from[5]. I will list most of the stuff from his contributions [6] on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, if it is not already there. Best regards, -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Reverting Kosovo

Name dispute or not, but why have you reverted my revert of the Kosovo article? ChrisO's edits were erroneus, and I was right to revert them. I was apparently too hasty and rv'ed Dori's edits as well, but you could have reintroduced them, not' just revert back. Please don't involve so deeply in editing of topics that you don't know so much about.

I'll dissect you his edits:

• ChrisO changed "rest of Serbia" to "Serbia proper" even though he knows, he's been told that this is offensive to Serbs. And he choose to change at this exact moment.
• He also rewrote "Metohia is the large valley..." to "The large valley at the west of the province is referred to as the Metohija". Metohia is a redirect to this article, so previous wording, which defined the term, should be kept. Also he's trying to push POV that the valley isn't an established region but is only referred to as such.
• Then he changed "The second largest region is Kosovo proper or Kosovo Polje (Kosovo Field)" to "Central Kosovo is a plain known as Kosovo Polje". This is incorrect, as the plain is in northern part of the province. By the way, even the previous version is incorrect.
• He reworded definition as "Kosovo is an autonomous province of southern Serbia, known in Serbian as Kosovo i Metohija". Southern Serbia is not a political entity and has no provinces, and Serbia doesn't have any province with the name "Kosovo".

I don't know why, but I quite like you, so, please, don't do it again. Nikola 21:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nicola. Thanks for your message. I think I may have reverted more than necessary in this [7] revert. My aim was to revert the "Kosovo and Metohia" and the disambiguity links in the first two changed paragraphs in the Difference between revisions. About your points:

• "Serbia" and "Serbia proper": I don't know much about which version is the correct one. I also can't say if one or both are offensive to some people/groups. Either version is fine by me. A compromise could be to write that its called "Serbia" by GroupA and "Serbia proper" by GroupB.

>>Well, you can't but he can, yet he changes it. Nikola

• "Metohia" and "Metohija", and "Kosovo proper": The first two names look the same to me, and I would believe that they are pronounced similarly. The previous edit seemed to contain more information, but - as you suspected - I do not know much about Serbia. BTW, is it possible that "Kosovo Proper" may be offensive to some similar to "Serbia proper"? Actually, your approach of listing both names seems to be better here.

>>You've missed my point, but it is too complicated for me to explain it. Nikola

• "Kosovo is an autonomous province": This point is not entirely clear to me. From what I remember from the news is -and I might be quite wrong- that there was/is a lot of violence between Serbs and Albanians, and either one wants the province, but without the other ethnicity. As a result, Kosovo seems to be a very independent province of Serbia at best, and more under UN control than Serbian control. But then, I don't know much about it.

>>Again, that was not my point. United States of America have article on United States, yet it begins with "United States of America .. is...". United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has article at United Kingdom, yet it starts with "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is...". Same should be followed here. Nikola 11:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object a change of the points you mentioned, simply because I don't know which one is the better way. In case of doubt, I usually prefer to include both versions. My concern is that the article and its references are called "Kosovo". I know you don't like that - and you don't have to - but it seems to be the majority view based on a vote, which I consider done properly, similar to other votes on Wikipedia. It was announced on the Village Pump, so it got proper exposure, and there was ample discussion of the points in the Kosovo talk page (with most Pro-K&M points coming from you). Excluding the vote of User:Kosovar, who has only two edits beside Talk page edits, there are still 9 people for Kosovo, and no votes against. I hope you will respect the majority view, even if you strongly disagree. As for me, I will continue to support the majority view of Kosovo. If the majority would change its view, then I would have no problems with naming the province any name the majority prefers.

>>I have summed up why the vote was invalid User talk:ChrisO. Nikola 11:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Back to your edits: because of the multiple move of the page back and forth, the page is now protected, and I am not allowed to make edits. You could request unprotection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, maybe with a statement that you wont move the page. Anyway, thanks for not requesting de-adminship for Dori, and for having a civil tone in the discussions. (other users sometimes turn to profanity quickly if people don't agree with them). Best regards, -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nicola. Regarding the revert: Either way is fine by me (although I reserve the right to change my opinion in the future). Thanks for not going into detail about why and what, I wouldn't really know enough about the details to decide between e.g. "Metohia" and "Metohija". About the vote: I read your statement on User talk:ChrisO before I wrote my answer from 01:17, 14 May 2004, and still think the vote was proper. Even if it would have been an invalid vote, a result of 10:0 is pretty strong, and a new vote would probably give similar results. Nevertheless, feel free to start a new discussion or vote on the talk page, but based on the information from you and others on Talk:Kosovo I will continue to support the name Kosovo. BTW, I agree with you that Kosovar has not enough edits. I think Kosovar should have at least 10 article edits to have a valid vote. Best regards, -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:26, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I hold that, if Kosovar cannot vote, his dissent cannot be used to start a vote. I won't edit Talk:Kosovo because it insults me to have to edit that page. Nikola 12:44, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

---

You are an admin. You have rollback. Could you please go over your edits where you have removed Metohia from the link to the province and rollback them? It is much easier for you to do then it is for me. Nikola 13:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

And if you don't think that you should, OK, but at least don't devert. I have to go off the net now but would gladly explain about this later. Nikola 13:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Nicola, i do not object the comments you listed above about the page Kosovo. But i DO object against you linking everything to Kosovo and Metohija! I believe the vote is valid, and the province is called Kosovo in english. If you want to argue about a possible difference between Kosovo as a province of serbia, and Kosovo as a region, then you can add a page Kosovo (Region), but the serbian province is Kosovo, and I will continue to fix links from Kosovo and Metohija to Kosovo. Unfortunately, this means a lot of reverts of your reverts. Please accept the majority view. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the vote is invalid, but even if it would not be, the only thing it decided is that article about Kosovo and Metohia would be located at Kosovo. It did not decide how the article should be linked from other articles. Nor a vote can decide what is the name of the province. You should not have done anything about this matter untill the dust has settled.

If you still believe that you are correct, you should go and fix all links to United States to USA (former has 13,000,000 Google hits, latter 138,000,000). If you don't, I can't consider your stance as anything but exclusively anti-Serb. Nikola 06:36, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Again, I consider the vote valid. I also believe that any other vote here on Wikipedia about this question will yield similar results. Do you want to tell all the people that voted that their opinion did not matter? In any case, the vote is the best thing we have until another vote comes along. If there is a vote about United States and USA, I would also follow the majority vote. The vote was about what to call the province, and it was decided for Kosovo. Hence it should be called Kosovo throughout Wikipedia with few exceptions (e.g. Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro, or Project Rastko). You can start a new vote if you want to talk about it on Talk:Kosovo, and if you get the majority for your opinion, then I am all for it. Until then, please don’t call people anti-serb, name calling never helps. It is unfortunate that we have this argument, because except for your pushing of Kosovo and Metohia I had a good impression of you. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I am not pushing Kosovo and Metohia. I am keeping Kosovo and Metohia. You are pushing Kosovo. Nikola 07:23, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The vote decided the URL of the article, not how that article would be referred to from other articles. My example about USA was maybe not a best one, but now I expect you to fix all links to Kyiv to point to Kiev [8], all links to Makkah to point to Mecca [9], and all links to Bombai to point to Mumbai [10]. There were votes on these issues. Nikola 07:17, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I am busy now, but I can start fixing links later today. Will take me some time, though, and there are always more redirects than time. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Image:Croatia flag large.png on Wikipedia:Requested pictures

You discussed the coratian flag with User:Grendelkhan, and he placed a request on Wikipedia:Requested pictures, so I thought I let you know too: I have downloaded the coratian flag from the CIA World Factbook, and corrected the coat of arms (COA) placement and 2:1 ratio using OpenOffice.org (Draw). I assumed with the incorrect placement you meant the horizontal lines of the COA aligned with the red/white/blue borders. I also trimmed the edges a bit to get the COA centered according to the previous low res version, and the flag into a 2:1 ratio. Now the only difference is a slighly different blue color in the top left, center, and right part of the coat of arms. Not sure which version is correct or if it needs correcting. Let me know and I can GIMP it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:56, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah, now Image:Croatia flag large.png is much better. There's a few more details to fix but I can fix them myself. (Also with Gimp :) Thanks. --Shallot 10:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

User:Jondel copyvios

Hi. You added User:Jondel to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Can you list any violations you have found seperately? In order for them to be evaluated each article must have the boilerplate copyright violation notice. Thanks - Tεxτurε 23:19, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

When I added the user, i also added a 5 individual copyvio contributions in a new sub-section ===User:Jondel===. For the relevant page history see here [11]. Somebody made the subsection for user:Jondel into a bullet, and subsequently it was no longer clear that the following bullets belong to the User:Jondel entry. As the copyvio articles are now deleted, this bullet is no longer needed. I think i will no longer use subsections on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but just use only bullets (see also: User:Avala on the same page). Thank you for cleaning up the copyvio page, that was needed. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)