User talk:Dojarca/Archive6

Image copyright problem with Image:Lodztelephone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lodztelephone.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:QubeOS.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:QubeOS.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded better version as Image:QubeOS.png--Dojarca (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of planetary bodies

The article has not been removed. Its information has been merged with the larger list. Everything in that article is now in the List of spherical objects in the Solar System article, so it no longer needs to exist. Besides, the article as it stands has a number of unresolved issues. There is no clear definition of the term "planetary", and there is no explanation of the "internal structure" images. Serendi ^pod ous 07:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No many issues are not covered in that article, such as surface area, region groupping and internal structure. Besides I think this article is better than that you promote. If you want to delete something, please use AFD procedure.--Dojarca (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a deletion. It's a merge. Surface area is listed in the other article. Region groupings are also listed in the other article (all moons are color-coded according to the planet they orbit; asteroids, terrestrial planets, gas giants and trans-Neptunian objects are all specifically color coded). The internal structure images are useless without some form of annotation explaining what they mean. Without any sense of scale, without any explanation of the various temperatures, compounds, and states of matter, they're just pretty pictures. Serendi ^pod ous 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly want to make a war out of this, but I've taken your advice and gone to AfD. Serendi ^pod ous 18:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please produce edit summaries!

Your recent edit on Germany is not comprehensible to me. Please be more specific when you put such a maintenance template, so that your fellow editors know what you object and how they can fix. Often, it is a good idea to start a talk page section, rather than putting such a template, especially when it is about an FA. Tomeasy_{T C} 10:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E5101 series?

Hi,

ISTR that you're familiar with Soviet-era computing systems. Do you happen to know anything about the series starting with E5101? AFAIK, the last model produced was E5104.

It was a school-oriented microcomputer system based around KR580VM80A and its full range of support chips, typically with 64 kibibytes of memory, and in all installations I know of, it ran a CP/M variant called EKDOS. I have heard that among other ported OSes were MP/M and something called Janet, but my knowledge of those is rather limited. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know nothing about that. --Dojarca (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Consul and my talk page

Please read the talk page before editing. These [1][2] sources say all emperors after Justinian bacame consuls until Leo VI, so Constans II was not the last consul. Also, from the List of Roman consuls you can learn that in 488 489 490 492 493 494 498 500 501 502 503 505 506 507 508 511 512 513 up to 534 there were two consuls - long after the fall of the empire in the west. So I removed both controversial statements.--Dojarca (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're splitting hairs. What is more, from your edits, as well as a gap in editing during October and November, it is pretty clear to me that you're a sockpuppet of User:Certh, or Certh was a puppet of you. Stick with making the stronger edits you make which are not related to this tendentious consul hangup of your's. Just a little background: Dojarca departs from Wikipedia on October 16 after Certh opens a mediation cabal case to discuss/complain about my changing of the same content about which you are complaining to me today. In my first edit to that page, also on October 16, I note the similarity between Certh and Dojarca.

Certh then gets himself blocked on November 4th, and Dojarca returns later that day. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you on the article's talk page. Your accusations show you probably have weak position in the article's dispute.--Dojarca (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiberniantears all my edits are based on sources. Unlike yours. Can you provide at least one source?--Dojarca (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]