User talk:Duja/Archive 5

; Archives
Jun '04 – Mar 2006; Mar – May 2006; May – Oct 2006; Oct – Nov 2006;	Nov – Dec 2006; Jan – Mar 2007; Mar – Jul 2007; Jul – Aug 2007; Sep – Nov 2007;

Eh...?

Did you notice my post? --PaxEquilibrium 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But I can't block any user whom I or my wikifriends don't like, and I'm not sure I'm neutral on the issue either. Besides, I believe Dijxtra can handle the situation well. Duja► 07:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities of Serbia

Thought you might know of a solution to this problem: when {{Municipalities of Central Serbia}} and {{Municipalities of Vojvodina}} are nested in {{Municipalities of Serbia}} the "city of..." links aren't displayed bolded, although they are shown bolded when the templates aren't nested. I've checked, and this issue affects Firefox 2.0 and the latest version of Opera, but not IE7. Any thoughts? // estavisti 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it myself yesterday afternoon; the only idea I get at the moment is that the font looks slightly smaller in the "combined" template than when each is viewed separately. I'll give it a try. Duja► 07:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the problem; class="toc" reduces the font size within, and the browsers apparently can't render so small font in bold. I didn't fix it yet, though, as the end results I tried are either ugly or screw e.g. {{serbia-geo-stub}} below. Duja► 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baš se namučih, ali mislim da sam mu do'ako. Duja► 09:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dva problema

1. U infoboxu u članku Sečanj piše broj stanovnika za "town", a Sečanj je "village". Mislim da smo se dogovarali da napišemo "village" kod takvih mesta, pa kako je tu sada ispalo "town"? Ako to ne možeš da popraviš u ovom infoboxu, onda treba napraviti novi infobox gde će pisati "village" na tom mestu. Sličan problem je i u članku Subotica, koja ipak nije "town" već "city".
'Ajd kad insistiraš. Dodao sam opcioni type argument (="village/city", default="town"). Ali molim te ti zađi pa dopravi (treba onda srediti i po gradskim opštinama čije je jezgro u gradu da bude "city"). Duja► 08:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E što se tiče zvanične publikacije vlade Srbije sa popisa 2002, to je CD koji sam kupio u Beogradu i ne može se naći na internetu. Međutim, imaš nešto slično na ovoj adresi: http://www.szs.sv.gov.yu/Popis/PrviRez.pdf Međutim, izgleda da link sada ne radi (ranije je radio, međutim, pokušaj ga kliknuti za koji dan možda proradi). Na toj adresi su prvi rezultati popisa, dakle brojevi koji nisu prepravljeni u konačnim rezultatima. Znači, brojevi nisu sto posto tačni, ali su zato sva gradska naselja tu označena slovom "g". Dakle, samo ono što ima slovo "g" ima status gradskog naselja, a sve ostalo su sela. Što se tiče Subotice, ona je isto označena sa "g", ali bi u engleskom najbolji opis za Suboticu bio "city", zbog svoje veličine od oko 100,000 stanovnika. Ako taj link baš ne bude proradio, mogu ti i podatke sa ovog CD-a što imam narezati na prazan CD i dati lično (u komšiluku smo, zar ne?) :) Ti samo meni daš jedan prazan CD (nemoj baš neki skrnav), a ja tebi ovaj sa podacima sa popisa. Inače, ja ću to popraviti gde nađem grešku u člancima, ne znam sad napamet šta su sve sela a šta gradovi, a i ti ako negde nađeš da u uvodnom delu teksta piše "is a village and municipality", možeš slobodno promeniti u infoboxu u "village", jer sam ja kod svih članaka o opštinama Srbije u uvodnom delu teksta napisao da li je nešto grad ili selo. Što se gradskih opština tiče, mislio sam da se ovaj šablon neće stavljati i na gradske opštine, jer one uključuju samo deo grada, pa kod njih taj odnos city/municipality baš i ne važi. PANONIAN (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, javiću ti se... kadgod. Nisam inicijalno mislio ni ja da ga stavljam na gradske opštine, ali mnoge nisu imale nikakav, pa sam po njima zaređao; plus, dosta Beogradskih prigradskih (Lazarevac npr.) nisu u pravom smislu "gradske" pa je dobro došao. Duja► 14:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mnoge nisu imale nikakav? Kako to? Misliš li "nikakav" u smislu da ga nisu imale uopšte ili da je bio loš? Ja sam ranije stavio one stare šablone na sve opštine Srbije, uključujući i sve gradske, pa ako negde nije bilo šablona, to znači da ih je neko posle toga uklonio. Jel možeš navesti neku opštinu gde šablona nije bilo uopšte, da proverim kako je taj šablon nestao? PANONIAN (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeznuo sam se; imale su sve, mada je za neke (Stragari Kragujevac, Palilula, Niš) bio uglavnom ili potpuno prazan. 15:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

2. U članku Sremski Karlovci se mapa Srbije u infoboxu uopšte ne vidi. Mislim da je to bag koji se ponekad javlja kod uploadovanja slika, tako da mislim da se problem može rešiti ako se slika ubaci na wiki commons pod novim imenom. PANONIAN (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evo ubacio sam sliku pod novim imenom ali stvarno nemam pojma kako da zamenim staru sliku sa ovom: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Serbia_Sremski_Karlovci_opstina.png Ajde molim te zameni sliku u članku. PANONIAN (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probao sam i ja svašta, uključujući re-export slike. Taj bug stvarno nervira i stavio sam ga na Wiki bugzillu. Pogledaj primjere na Image talk:Serbia Sremski Karlovci.png i commons:Image talk:Serbia mountain ranges.png; hat međutim, čak i kad stavim 151 px veličinu u infobox, i dalje nije OK na Sremski Karlovci. Izgleda, kad se jednom zapizdi na datoj slici (iz nepoznatih razloga), nije ga lako odučiti. Poigraću se još malo.
Novu verziju slike uploaduješ sa "Upload new version of this image" na dnu strane, kao i na Wikipediji. U čemu je bio problem? Duja► 08:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izgleda da sam ipak sredio

— bio sam prepravio pogrešnu cifru u 151. Duja► 08:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ej, a jel možeš da središ i kod članka Alibunar? Isti problem. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S Alibunarom je možda drugi problem — ovo sa Karlovcima sam riješio (izgleda) promjenom u šablonu. Problem se javlja samo sa mapama koje sam uploadovao naknadno, tj. koje su originalno zaboravljene u uploadu iz Juna. Probaću re-upload. Duja► 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zemun

Infobox u članku Zemun je jako ružan sa dve mape. Ogroman je i preklapa sadržaj. Pošto mi nije jasno baš kako ovaj novi infobox radi, jel mi možeš reći kako da levu mapu izbacim iz infoboxa i da je stavim u članak kao posebnu sliku? Estetski gledano, infobox ne treba nikako da bude veći od polovine širine stranice, a ovaj zauzima dve trećine. PANONIAN (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estavisti... uvek mu je lakše da revertuje nego da popravi i boli ga k. za kolateralnu štetu. Evo revertovaću... Duja► 16:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

О чему бре причаш ти? --Еstavisti 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

О овом бре, ал' нема сад више везе... Duja► 07:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E sad te baš davim, ali šta mogu kad ne znam sam da sredim te nove šablone: ako možeš samo kod Zemuna i Subotice da popraviš da u tabeli piše "city" umesto "town", jer sve što ima više od 100,000 stanovnika je suviše veliko da ga zovemo "town". PANONIAN (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naučio sam sam. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Са овим се не слажем. Можда у Србији је 100,000 нешто, али је то ипак town а не city. --Еstavisti 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A na osnovu čega to tvrdiš? Članak town kaže da town može biti velik " from a few hundred to several thousands". Dakle, nekoliko hiljada, a ne stotine hiljada stanovnika. PANONIAN (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

То тврдим на основу тога што city и town су веома растегљиви појмови, а кад кажеш city то даје утисак неког званичног статуса. У Србији тај статус имају БГ, НС, КГ и НИ. Искрено, место које има 100,000 становника за некога из великог града никад не би могло да представља неки city. Суботица јесте big town, али никако small city. То је просто апсурдно... Тешко је објаснити на српском ту разлику, јбг --Еstavisti 00:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa znam da su rastegljivi pojmovi, ali bukvalan prevod pojma "city" na srpski je "velegrad" (ili "veliki grad"). I bez obzira na zvaničan status, pojam city se takođe može koristiti na osnovu veličine ili faktičkog statusa regionalnog centra. E sada, da li je 100,000 stanovnika dovoljno da nešto zovemo "city" ili ne je pitanje za široku raspravu, ali meni je stvarno glupo da na primer Suboticu ili Zemun zovemo "town". PANONIAN (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Bergen

Please visit the new Marty A. Bergen page and help me clean it up, if you can. Thanks. Eljamin 17:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smederevo

Evo mislim da sam sredio slike u članku: sada izgleda dobro i na Operi i na Int. Exploreru. Inače, primetio sam jedan bag u infoboxu koji se manifestuje u Internet Exploreru i to ne samo u ovom članku već i u ostalim: grb ne stoji na sredini infoboxa već je pomeren u levo. Jel to može da se popravi? PANONIAN (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E i ja sam ga vidio, ali nisam skontao u čemu je kvaka. 'Ajd probaću još jednom... Duja► 13:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ey yo!

IZBORNA KOMISIJA, "Election something", is a VERY VERIABLE SOURCE. And that names in that list, IS THE OFFICIAL NAME RULED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN BIH.

And because of that, Bosanska Gradiska/Gradiska and Bosanski Samac/Samac is the official names of the towns.

And that is OFFICIAL.

Pozdrav // Alkalada 14:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Ling. Nut...

Hi Duja,

I left some very important comments at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Renaming survey. One major point of those comments is that I'm sorry if the words I chose caused you to believe that I was suggesting that your proposal was in bad faith. I have never thought that you were acting in bad faith. It is no great effort for me to assume good faith with respect to your proposal, because I sincerely and deeply believe that they are in good faith.

Does that make sense?

Best regards --Ling.Nut 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various

Имаш право што се тиче Земуна, али ипак нам треба нови инфобокс за БГ општине. Међутим, немам времена за то сада. За Андрића, боље је ништа не рећи у уводу, јер ће се увек неко бунити. Ако ти хоћеш да се бориш са Бошњацима онда feel free. Као друго, грб у Инфобокс Србија је на десној страни кад се гледа у ИЕ7-у. --Еstavisti 15:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misliš na levoj (bar u IE6)? Mislim da je sad sređeno -- hardkodovana širina table ga je *ebala. Ne bih pravio novi infobox za BG opštine, ali ako treba sklon sam da parametrizujemo postojeći pa da se tu pojavljuje već-šta-treba; lakše je za održavanje kasnije. Što se tiče Andrića, "boriću se sa Bošnjaci"... to je u stvari naš stari drugar Hahahihihoho/Thunderman, za kojeg razmišljam o obnovi blokade. Duja► 15:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

хахаха, ја сам из Ниш итд итд :) --Еstavisti 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sto se tice imena gradova imam "sources" i to si i ti priznao Duja. Sto se tice Andrica je rodzen u BiH, odrasto je u BiH i zato se racuna kao Bosanac. I to nije vandalism, nego istina. Alkalada 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Наравно да је био Босанац, али није био само Босанац. --Еstavisti 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cork

Cork has been moved again, incidentially by someone who wanted a move. Perhaps you can take a look. Djegan 17:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Cork. Djegan 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An update on the situation; its largely been settled at this point, but thanks for your previous assistance. Djegan 19:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Estavisti

Could you delete my account, my user page, talk page, user page history, and talk page history please? I wish to leave Wikipedia and most traces of my presence here to be removed. I don't want to go through the whole hassle of Miscellany for Deletion because it is only my own account. Хвала унапред :)--Еstavisti 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Е хвала. Бићу ја ту, ту и тамо, па видимо се. --86.129.89.95 13:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Žao mi je, jebi ga, šta da ti kažem. A sad i ovaj Panonian... Možda preozbiljno shvatate ovu wikipediju... Duja► 13:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Can something be done about this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=VinceB He deleting titles "Name" from several articles about places in Vojvodina and I think that his goal is simply to prove a point with these edits. He not only deleting "Name" sections, but with that deletion, he also delete "Contents tables" from the articles because these tables need 4 titles to appear and after his deletions of the "Name" sections, number of titles become 3 and thus contents table disappear. Hence, I believe that his edits are disruptive, so can anything be done about his behaviour? PANONIAN (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems...

...like Hectorian was ahead of you in that. Most Greeks don't use that name as a matter of principle, but he even notified Aldux. You should have added Macedonian Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, Turks etc instead of deleting. Next time WP:AGF please, you POV-pusher of the MacSlav doctrine! :-) His Lawyer 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF="Assume Greek Fabrication"

? I did, you epsilonist Atheno-Macedonian ! Yet Another Macedonist Mercenary 09:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good mopping, and remember: We are constantly watching you from above... the protector of the innocent undefended Greek propagandists. 10:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And w e are watching you in turn... like the Friedrich Dürrenmatt said in the sub-heading of The Assignment (on the Observing of the Observor of the Observors). Duja► 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....are you two playing games? --PaxEquilibrium 17:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dead serious, for my part. Duja► 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PMA blocks

Hi, as you were involved in overturning that block by PMA the other day, you might be interested in this RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PMA. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not too fast

I find your action in [1] way too premature.--Huaiwei 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for helping out at Pulau Batu Puteh. __earth ^(Talk) 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Kin Mafia/New Age Outlaws

Move request aren't just polls, they also go by the strength of the argument. I showed the very obvious reason why the article should be at New Age Outlaws, therefore you should have moved it since the opposition had nothing to support keeping the article there. TJ Spyke 22:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Both positions make sense. "No consensus" means "no consensus"; There are reasonable precedents and guidelines for both "keeping up with name changes" and for "sticking with the most common name", and situation with that article is not new in this regard. OTOH, if I had reversed the previous unilateral move, the debate would in my opinion escalate rather than calm down. I fail to see a big deal, frankly. Duja► 15:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preempting Niko

Yeah Niko, I know. Duja► 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Académie_française#Requested_move

Hi

As you can imagine, i'm pretty upset about the outcome on Talk:Académie_française#Requested_move where i seem to have been the only one defending WP policy and observance of accepted usage in other encyclopedias.

GTBacchus wrote these wise words: Part of the downside of how Wikipedia works is that a lot of decisions are based on the reasonableness of the three or four people who happen to be standing around when shit goes down, and that doesn't always work out in the direction of common sense. This seems like a serious flaw in WP that requires immediate attention, discussion, and correction. We should at least let proposals sit for longer than the current planned 5 days. It would seem that at least a month of time should be allowed to let people interested discover the discussion. Now the process seems to be geared towards full-time Wikipedians and to exclude people who have a real life too, i.e. all experts with the most valuable opinions.

More generally speaking, i'm beginning to feel WP is a Sisyphean task that will always stay at the blog level unless vote counting is abolished and replaced by points for reputable sources or some similar evaluation scheme. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policies already seems to provide some help for content issues, but deletion and move decisions are carried out with too much arbitrariness, which seems to a large part caused by too much haste. For example, I've seen huge amounts of work destroyed especially in CfDs where the "victims" didn't discover the proposed deletion at all or in time to react and especially too late to rally support from other like-minded people. --Espoo 10:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think you're showing an excessive zeal. "I seem to have been the only one defending WP policy and observance of accepted usage in other encyclopedias" is in my opinion too strong a statement (to put it mildly). I try to read the arguments expressed in surveys, and several posters pointed out that "French Academy" is ambiguous and archaic. I agreed with the reasoning.

If I may give you a piece of advice: bitching at every comment which doesn't agree with your viewpoint seldom if ever contributes to the fulfillment of your goal—quite the contrary. At the end, people come to "pile on oppose" with "per above" arguments just out of spite. For example, if you're following the unfortunate "US city naming convention" debate, I think that the valid attempts to change it, at least partly, were mostly spoiled by excessive Serge's zeal in promoting "wikipedia policy" over people's opinions. Being right does not entitle you to be a dick (I apologize if you take this as incivility, but I can't express myself better succintly). On occassion though, it's worthy to be a dick for a worthwile goal (I've been a dick myself on few occasions), but not on every single instance of a dispute.

Policies and guidelines are flexible. Consensus on occasion sucks (e.g. Fixed-wing aircraft) Wikipedia is not consistent, and I probably won't ever be. See the example where I learned it hard way. But you should take it more lightly. Duja► 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry i came across as a dick to you and perhaps some others. I honestly tried to react to the arguments to produce a debate and intellectual exchange because WP should not be based on opinions and opinion polls. I wasn't offended by people reacting to my arguments, so i have a hard time understanding why others can be upset by my contributions to the discussion in reacting to their arguments. Isn't it a sign of taking others seriously that one reacts to what they say? And as for my zeal, don't you think that's understandable and even appropriate in cases that seem to violate basic WP policies? If we make an exception for a prominent sacred cow like the French Academy, articles with foreign names will start multiplying based on this precedent.

And as i showed, "French Academy" is not used ambiguously in carefully edited texts. Do you really feel that a discussion is less worthwhile than an opinion poll? Do you really believe that having a different article name than in all other encyclopedias is not proof of WP's amateurism? The "archaic" claim was unsupported and referred to specialist literature, not to texts for the general public. As shown in great detail many if not most professors use the English, not the French name today, right now. --Espoo 11:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you congratulated Akhilleus yourself for "first constructive and mature contribution" (as well as I do, for a thorough research). Some of later posters were influenced by his opinion; some were just expressed their own opinion. But why do you have so strong opinion that, in cases where multiple reliable sources refer to something in different ways, only your sources are reliable, carefully reviewed etc. E.g. why is, in YLE case, http://www.yle.fi/fbc/index.shtml more reliable than http://www.yle.fi/fbc/thisyle.shtml, from the same page, of the same author? Why do sources from Catholic Encyclopedia (which also uses e.g. "Servia") and Encarta necessarily trump the ones listed by Akhilleus from Texas.edu, NY Times or Times? Simply put: when there are equally good reasons for either action, the consensus wins. I'm not a priori of either opinion—but on which grounds do you think I should have moved the page according to only your preference, when valid reasons against were brought forward? I am a human too, and I did make mistakes in similar situations, but you failed to convince me as the closing admin (and the others) that your opinion on that is The Truth™. Duja► 12:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i tried to explain in great detail why i thought certain sources were more reliable than others, but maybe you didn't have time to read the discussion in detail or maybe i didn't express myself well. I specifically explained that Akhilleus provided a good contribution because he at least provided sources and not just opinions, but i explained why these sources were less reliable or relevant and why they weren't enough to defend use of the French name. To make a long story short, much, much more detailed editorial thinking and much more copyedit expertise goes into the decision on an encyclopedia article name than into use of a word in a newspaper or magazine. In addition, even if newspapers use the French name in a text, that does not mean they wouldn't think long and hard before using it in a headline! So if all encyclopedias use "French Academy", WP is simply amateurishly edited if it doesn't follow suit. And use in specialist literature is irrelevant to an encyclopedia for the general public.

Basically, my opponents were not honest in simply ignoring the fact that WP policy clearly says to use the English name unless this is not well known. They kept trying to prove that some institutions or people use the French name, but according to WP policy, the English name should be used if it is also commonly used, especially in this case where it's used at least as much or even more. My opponents also simply ignored the fact that WP policy specifically says to use the form in other encyclopedias. You may consider my habit of discussing annoying, but i find the habits of my opponents of ignoring strong arguments and direct quotes of WP policy at least as annoying and very dishonest, childish, and self-opinionated. I'm willing to be proved wrong but my answers to illogical and weak arguments were simply ignored.

And as for the YLE discussion, i also explained why the sources i provided were much more reliable than YLE's own chaotic usage, which you also noticed and point out. All well-edited English texts first use the official English name and only later use the handy abbreviation YLE. Interestingly, even the page you linked to with only YLE has the link YOUR OWN YLE - facts and figures on YLE in pdf format to a more carefully edited text (shown by the PDF format) which does have the official English name almost at the beginning. Essentially YLE is the logo and Finnish Broadcasting Company is the official name. But at least YLE is better than the provincial and unpronounceable Yleisradio as the article name.

The main reason i have such strong opinions on naming and copyedit decisions is because i'm a professional copyeditor (BTW, i capitalise "I" in my professional work) and i find it shocking and sad that copyediting is done in such an amateurish way on WP, which makes it look much less reliable than it is and even hurts its content. I spend a lot of time researching before i come to a decision, and i also already know much more about these issues than most editors even before i start researching. I'm sure you can imagine what it would feel like if amateur decisions on content were implemented in areas where you're a professional. To most people, spelling, naming, and other copyedit issues seem like superficial extras, and they don't understand the profound effect these decisions have on WP usability for normal users and on the respect and amount of contributions it receives from experts in the topics covered. --Espoo 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Yleisradio

Hi

You forgot to sign this:

The result of the debate was Move to YLE. Yes, I know it wasn't requested but that actually seems to be the prevalent and unambiguous usage, and used by the company itself as well as throughout the article.

WP is supposed to follow usage in reputable sources, not an abbreviation incorrectly used by an editor writing in a foreign language and therefore forgetting to first use the full name. Your link http://www.yle.fi/fbc/thisyle.shtml is greatly outweighed by the more carefully produced text by YLE cited in the discussion which uses the official English name and by the usage in all carefully edited English texts. Do you really believe your arguments and sources are stronger than these?:

"Finnish Broadcasting Company" is the official English name used by Yleisradio itself (see bottom of [2]) and in all high-quality printed material published in English in Finland (e.g. Finnish Music Quarterly: [3], [4], [5], [6], Finnish Music Information Centre [7]), in the relevant legislation, and by the regulatory authority [8]

In addition, i don't understand how you can use the WP article to back up your decision because it would have been unfair if i'd edited that before the move proposal was decided on. --Espoo 11:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict, but I expected it). See above. Duja► 11:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Osli73

Greetings Duja, I am a Swedish Wikipedian with an interest in the former Yugoslavia. After being involved on a number of former Yugo article I can relate to your "impossible mission to make articles about former Yugoslavia free of POV, chauvinism and cruft." Keep up the good work. Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you. Cheers Osli73 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NS

Super si proširio text o NSu, znaš li samo kako da napišem Novi Sad prema International Phonetic Alphabet? --Göran Smith 11:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright angel

Let's see, did you put the arkan picture for deletion because you are a copyright angel or did you do it because..ooh want to hide it? I'm riddled! The picture was put up by the creator, perhaps it was Hanevi..how could you know Ancient Land of Bosoni

Even if it (hypothetically, of course) were Haviv himself, he couldn't have released the picture under different licenses for BBC and Wikipedia (GFDL). At least, an explicit permission would have to be given. And I'm tired of (and upset by) accusations that I want to hide The Truth™. Duja► 13:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Duja, seriously, you have my permission to delete the list. I've realized that it is no use to protest, you are in a great majority and that fact calls for other tactics. So what I am trying to say is, feel free to delete the List, I won't object. Since I wrote the article, I guess my word's enough? Ancient Land of Bosoni

To Duja

Опрости ама каква врска имам јас со Celtmist, Jordovan и Ragusan? Многу сум разочарен дека можеш да мислиш дека не сум вистински, или дека ми треба невистински пријатели. не е точно. Како што разбирам, тие сите беа вклучени на Бикипедија пред да дојдам јас на почетокот, дури и тогаш за првите месеци не уредував оти компјутерот не ми работеше. Јас не се сеќавам ако сум разговарал многу со ним, Тие (или тој) нека прават што сакаат, јас си имам своја посебна истоветност а ако ми го сакаш мејлот или други докази, само прашај, овде не кријам ништо. Слабо ги продавам моите политички погледи, и тоа никогаш кога темата е бившата Југославија, освен кога ги бранам домашните народи и заними против странците (Кфорците и Сфорците итд), сепак можам сам да се претставувам со сите користници без да се вклучам на друг прекар. Уште еднаш, немам врска со други користници никаде. Извини ако не чинам пријатен моментално само се плашам дека погрешно некој од управата тука ќе ме блокира, и тоа не заслужавам јас повеќе него Ragusan. Инаку, сега ќе ти пуштам еден пример од Celtmist: кога си дознал дека јас сум изјавел вакви глупости?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vojvodina&diff=32538952&oldid=32520809

ко да не знаев јас што е званичен јазик и кој и се на Војводина!!

Те молам, ако имаш сумњи, зборувај право со мене и ќе немам да се налутам, подобро така од колку да му провоцираме погрешни мислења на наѕорниците! Evlekis 11:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Евлекис[reply]

Pedra Branca, South China Sea

Should this section be archived too, as what you've done with the other section on the page? :-D — Insta ntnood 08:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happened there (two simultaneous RMs???), but it hardly matters... Duja► 08:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. The earlier one should be archived anyways. — Insta ntnood 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abuse or mistake?

I believe another admin has made a mistake, at this point I am assuming good faith, but I would like to know what is the right thing to do right now as I do not this user to quit Wikipedia as he has made nothing but great contribs to articles that really need editors and I feel he could be an even more valuable Wikipedian with time. Please let me know how you suggest I proceed.

Zoe (talk · contribs · logs) has first warned [9] Mihailo.stojanovic@amis.net (talk · contribs · logs) by having email address as username, and upon me questioning him [10] and no response from the user in question, he has blocked the user indefinitely. I have since requested that he unblocks the user [11], but I want to make sure user is unblocked ASAP so he does not quit editing from this bad experience.

Thanks. // Laughing Man 16:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism-like page move

Hi Some normal user "reverted" i.e. circumvented your admin page move http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finlandswedes&diff=84847660&oldid=84803373 --Espoo 05:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did it again. --Espoo 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again --Espoo 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak... If it happens again, I'll moveprotect the page. The current move war is not so intense to justify the immediate action. Duja► 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relief

Thanks Duja; I really did not mean to sound abrupt, just a little shocked! I thought I'd be sentenced without trial! :) Then again I noticed that you yourself are an administrator and have the power to block anyone at any time. Either way, if you spot similarities then it is quite all right to "speculate". On the issue I would be very sorry to see Ragusan eliminated, as for the Arvatov gang, I am pleased to see the back of them but after the first two times I read his/her edits, I never took him/her seriously. One more thing just for your own interest: my county of Wiltshire is not actually in or near London, my home town is exactly 160 km west of London and I personally now try to avoid London the same way that many rural Serbs hate the occasional inevitable trip to Belgrade! Thanks for clearing the issue and you don't need to "keep the observation to yourself", you are free to discuss it with me any time. Evlekis 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic

I suppose that you're right, both alphabets are not always required. I just can't see why Cyrillic permanently has to give way whenever there is an example. Don't get me wrong, it is not just on Serbian language, but on hundreds of other articles where there is mention of Serbian, many of which, you and I have never stumbled accross. I know that in Serbian-Macedonian-Montenegrin, Latinic has a privileged status in that it is highly used by its speakers (or writers), but to none of those languages can it ever be what Greek is to the Greeks, Arabic to the Arabs or Cyrillic again to the Russians/Bulgarians, yet every one of these scripts has a romanised form. What we need to ask ourselves in "why" are we giving examples of Serbian? It is because we are presenting an article on the language on the English wikipedia to those who probably don't know Serbian and are taking an interest. You and I don't need to explain to each other how Ana voli Filipa can be arranged anyhow and will mean the same thing :) we're the ones telling the outsiders that. So how do you go about giving an example from your language? There are two sensible ways: one is to give Cyrillic only, and I will explain why this is more acceptable (and effective) than it initially sounds. The editors of other non-Latinic script languages will give examples of words or pieces of text purely in their own script followed by a translation with the Romanised form being totally disregarded. So far this has never caused problems or raised queries, and whilst on Wikipedia, if the reader wishes to learn how "X" is read in Greek, he can quickly investigate. If you listen to Greek "X"'s sound, its exact approximate in English (I believe) is only in the word Loch (meaning lake in Scots). Most English don't know this and they still tend not to initially pronounce ONE Greek transliteration (Ch) as in loch, and the only two other ways of romanising Greek X is H (like in South Slavic), or KH like in Russian and Arabic, either way, all evoke different pronunciations from the ameteur English speaker!! So I doubt Чишћење is any more frightening that Čišćenje! And any how, it is the written language we are using. But if on the other hand, our purpose is to give a rough guideline as to how to say something, then perhaps we can devize a once-off transcription. "Ana Voli Filipa" is simple, but it might make the English man say "Anna voulaj Filajp(schwa)" :-) It is true, people do struggle here, Milosevic has more pronunciations between English, Australian and American than people he let down! "vollee" (voley = as in ball) is an instance of Anglo-South Slavic approximation. Or Cheesh - tyen - yea (for cleaning). Do you agree with most of this? Evlekis 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Cyrillic: while I might be rightfully accused to being "unpatriotic", I still think it's bad style to provide both Cyrillic and Latin transliterations in every single instance, especially since the transliteration is trivial. It clutters the text and doesn't give particular help to the reader. We're writing this encyclopedia for English readers, and we shouldn't expose them to our alphabetic and national frustrations. I'm not saying it was your intention, but that's how it comes through (in my opinion). I wouldn't even particularly object if all examples were given only in Cyrillic (although I think it's better to stick to Latin for simplicity)—just, giving the other equivalent doesn't serve a useful purpose. As for Macedonian: Latin is not a Macedonian alphabet, so Macedonian examples shouldn't be given in Latin.

Regarding phonetic transcriptions: as I get it, our aim is not to make Wikipedia a learning tool or a dictionary, but to give a language overview for the purpose of comparison and basic scientific study, i.e. our "target" English reader is not an Average Joe, but someone with at least basic linguistic background. IPA is WP- and world-widely accepted standard for transcription, and "poor man's" transcriptions such as "Cheesh-tyen-yea" are so unprofessional that they should be avoided by all means. Duja► 08:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open City

My mistake. I assumed no one would redirect pages to "Open City". --Ineffable3000 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Duja,

haven't talked to you in a long time, I laughed when I noticed that you reverted the "motto" of Serbia for the "146th time" :) Yes, I too noticed that a lot of people were adding "Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava" when that clearly can't be the state motto... Good to see someone like you is on the lookout, reverting these silly things :)) Hows life? :)

--GOD OF JUSTICE 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novi Sad

E, jel možeš srediti onu tabelu o povelji Marije Terezije u istorijskom poglavlju članka Novi Sad? Ako članak gledaš na Internet Exploreru, onda tekst koji treba da stoji ispod tabele dođe pored nje. Jel može tekst da lepo stoji dole? PANONIAN (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morao sam malo da reorganizujem; bilo bi bolje da slika stoji iznad citata kao pre, ali se "svađaju". Hard-kodovanje širine treba izbegavati, posebno u okviru teksta koji treba da bude uravnat s obe strane. Hint: koristi <br clear="all/left/right"> HTML tag kad ti treba da se tekst ručno prelomi tako da se nastavlja ispod "plutajućih" okvira s bilo koje/leve/desne strane. Duja► 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Sanader article

Reverting it to a very old (but nonvandalized) version is probably the best thing to do. I probably should have done that myself, instead of correcting mistakes by hand and reverting to newer versions. Don't worry about collateral, I'll be going through the history adding back in anything relevant. I have also requested semi-protection for the page. -- xompanthy 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm surprised no Croatian newspaper picked up this story, they usually report when an article on a member of the Croatian Parliament or government gets vandalized. And usually after that happens, a whole flood of vandals come to "join the party". It's why I requested semi-protection, 'cause something like that is bound to happen... -- xompanthy 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few important articles on Croatia on my watchlist, but the problem is, I'm not on wikipedia all that often. And when I am, I don't always remember to check the list :). I'm gonna be more watchful from now on. And an extra pair of eyes is always welcome. -- xompanthy 20:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahihihoho

Hello. For a little checkuser project of mine, I require a list of Hahahihihoho's sockpuppets, but so far I've got only User:Thunderman. Could you assist please (or point me to someone who had more experience with Hahahihihoho perhaps?). Thanks in advance. --PaxEquilibrium 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alkalada. I gave him some leeway for this time though—he wasn't that disruptive. In 10 years, maybe he could become a productive user

. Duja► 07:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... but to cut things short, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hahahihihoho. --PaxEquilibrium 15:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help request

Your help is requested as someone with current or recent interest in resolving the U.S. settlement naming convention discussion. I have created a "discussion template" modeled off of an RfC to attempt to structure the discussion, which is spinning wheels and spraying mud. I'd greatly appreciate any input you could provide (including "what are you smoking?"--or perhaps, "keep this in your back pocket"). Thanks in advance. --Ishu 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mapa opštine Subotica

Ej, trebalo bi da pogledaš zadnji revert war koji sam imao sa korisnikom Bože pravde oko korišćenja njegove mape opštine Subotica. Dakle, on je napravio ovaj šablon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Subotica_Labelled_Map Generalno, ideja interaktivne mape je dobra, ali se nikako ne slažem sa korišćenjem ovakve mape kakva je sada. Dobro znaš koliko smo se dugo dogovarali kako da izgleda šablon za opštine Srbije, pa ne verujem ni da će oko ove mape ići lakše, ali generalno postoje 4 stvari koje mi tu smetaju: 1. smatram da mapa treba da pokazuje granice opštine Subotica, 2. smatram da tačna lokacija naseljenih mesta treba da bude označena tačkom, 3. smatram da mapa ne treba da zauzima više od polovine širine stranice u članku, odnosno da bude veličine oko 250px da bi se slagala sa veličinom fotografija, i 4. bilo bi dobro da ima okvir kao i većina drugih šablona koje koristimo. Znači, hoću da te pitam šta misliš o ova 4 pitanja i da li se to može izmeniti na mapi. Idealno bi bilo da mapa koju koristimo bude neka kombinacije ove koju je napravio korisnik Bože pravde i ove stare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Subotica.png PANONIAN (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ovde se izgleda radi o nesporazumu, jer ja tu mapu vidim ovako: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mapasub.png a ne onako kako bi trebalo. Mislim da bi problem bio rešen da se mapa ubaci ponovo pod drugim imenom. Pošto user:Bože pravde to neće da uradi, jel možeš da ubaciš njegovu mapu Subotice pod novim imenom na Vikipediju čisto da vidimo da li ću je onda videti. PANONIAN (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, problem je rešen, ubačena je nova mapa. PANONIAN (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDF

Onaj dokument što sam ti poslao nisu "(early) census results" već su to konačni rezultati popisa. Imam i drugi PDF sa prvim rezultatima ali tamo nema podataka o etničkim grupama, samo o broju stanovnika. PANONIAN (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da, skontao sam u medjuvremenu da sam pomešao dokumente u glavi.

Nego, ja sam prilično odmakao u pretakanju tog dokumenta u... listu... Još mi je sve na kompu, u Access bazi (još samo da skontam kako da join-ujem dve tabele, a *ebu me višestruka imena). Mislio sam da to organizujem ovako:

(Za Kosovo nemam podatke)

Obe liste bi bile istog formata i imale bi jednu podugačku class="sortable" tabelu (vidi ovde kako to radi), koja bi sadržala ime, broj stanovnika, opštinu, poštanski broj (ako mesto ima poštu, da ne dupliciram napor i oko toga; List of postal codes in Serbia je nekompletna). Gradska naselja i opštinska sedišta bi bila u drugoj boji i/ili bold tekstu. Šta misliš o tome? Duja► 15:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa nećeš valjda iskasapiti članak "List of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina"? Ajde bolje obe liste stavi u jedan članak koji će se zvati "List of places in Serbia", a ovaj ostavi kakav je. :) PANONIAN (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Nisam ni gledao da vojvođanski ima toliko informacija mimo obične liste. Ostaviću ga na miru, onda. "List of places" mi zvuči kao srbglish — nije li "List of cities, towns and villages" standardno na WP? Duja► 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa kako god ti se više sviđa. Inače ovde imaš i spisak mesta na Kosovu: http://kosova.org/de/staedte/communities/index.asp samo nije poređan po opštinama već po azbučnom redu. PANONIAN (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skini ovaj PDF: http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/admdirect/2004/ade2004_23_annex.pdf Tu imaš mesta na Kosovu podeljena po opštinama. PANONIAN (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian language in Skopje

Thanks for your confirmation on my Reference desk query! Did you note my comment (just above yours) about the possibility of the Jews in Skopje being an immigrant community, as a plausible explanation for their using a non-local language on the sign for their cemetery? Limitations on my resources prevent me from pursuing this further at present, nor do I have much information on the provenance of the photo evidence. The preliminary identification of the language was entirely the contribution of yourself and fellow Wikipedian respondents -- for whom, my esteem and appreciation! -- Deborahjay 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia

Why did you delete the Serbophobia article after it survived three (!) politically motivated deletion nominations? It wasn't perfect, but neither was it "crap" as you characterised it. Ignore all rules, sure, but don't be a dick either. The way you have just decided to overrule three failed deletion nominations with a two word edit summary ("delete crap") smacks of arrogance and POV pushing. I like you, we've cooperated well in the past, but you are way out of line on this one. --Еstavisti 05:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I get the feeling that the "ignore all rules" policy doesn't give you free rein to delete articles and, more importantly, their entire revision histories.--Еstavisti 05:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing, I would list you at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, but it would just bring up bad feeling and I don't see any positive outcomes that could emerge from doing so. As an alternative, can you suggest any page where this deletion can be discussed? --Еstavisti 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was this deletion made under the influence Duja? What were you thinking? // Laughing Man 06:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only influence was my being pissed off by the way how such articles are created and "maintained"; those are soapboxes for whining of our poor destiny and how we were tortured and maltreated during the course of history just for being the ethnic X. Anti-Bosniak sentiment and Anti-Croatian sentiment gone down the drain too. It came as result of yesterday's spam/whining rant by Bosniak (talk · contribs), after which I took a look at and tried to improve the articles; then I realized it was a hopeless task, and there was a far better way to improve them. I fully accept the perception that I have been a dick. I reported the deletion immediately here. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the way to go if you want to pursue the issue, and I wouldn't mind an RfC either; I knew that the deletion would be contentious, but I still think that it was the right thing to do. Duja► 08:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose all these out of process deletions. They should be undeleted immediately, and if you feel they should be deleted, they can go to AfD. However, it appears at least the Serbophobia article had multiple unsuccessful AfD noms, in which case it should not be nominated again any time soon, making your unilateral deletion of it even more shocking. These decisions are not for individuals to make. Everyking 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, but WP:IAR is and always has been a policy. See also WP:SIR, especially #2. Like I said, anyone who dislikes my action is welcome to pursue the issue wherever appropriate. Duja► 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you should delete Anti-Hungarian sentiment too. Same shit as other 3... PANONIAN (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niš

If you're that sure [12], could you delete the redirect Naessus. Greets. //Dirak 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let it live, seems to be a relatively frequent (mis)spelling. Duja► 16:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-X'ism articles

As I said, I very much agree with seeing many of those Anti-X'ism articles deleted, but I don't think it will be a good idea to wade through the whole field doing out-of-process speedies left and right. Here's a little draft of what would be my argumentation if it came to a centralised discussion somewhere. Please feel free to comment, add, shorten, tighten,...: Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem

Articles of the "Anti-X'ism" format are typically a magnet for Original Research, POV-pushing, and nationally motivated edit-warring.

However

Not all of these articles are bad. Paradigm cases of legitimate topics that should be kept are Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism.

Why? Where's the difference?

Among the minimum criteria for what is a legitimate article are:

In order for any topic to be legitimately encyclopedic, its subject matter must constitute a single unique entity or well-circumscribed set of entities.
In order for any topic to be legitimate under WP's NOR policy, this unity of the topic must be established by reliable sources.

How does this apply to "Anti-X'ism" articles?

Most "Anti-X'ism" articles start by giving a definition of the type: "Anti-X'ism refers to hostility towards, or persecution of, X...". This is true, and not OR, but it's only a dicdef and as such doesn't establish encyclopedicity.
Most "Anti-X'ism" articles then go ony by listing various instances where members of X have been discriminated against, persecuted, etc., at various times, by various other people, for various reasons.
However: As long as this is simply a listing of instances that fit the definition given in the lead sentence, it is still only an "indiscriminate collection of information". To become more than that, it needs to be shown that all these instances are causally and historically connected as parts of a single, unique phenomenon, manifestations of a single cause.
- Negative example: Anti-Canadianism lists prejudices by US Americans against the perceived liberal stance prevailing in Canada, side by side with an incident where Brazilians were enraged against Canadians because of trade policies. These two things are entirely unrelated, and hence form an "indiscrimiate collection".
In some cases, the authors of the "Anti-X'ism" pages forge a connection by way of insinuation. In these cases, articles are Original Research, synthesizing a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". It does not suffice for each individual case of alleged Anti-X'ism to be well sourced; the connection between them needs to be sourced too.
- Negative example: Anti-Arabism, Francophobia
In many cases, "Anti-X'ism" articles also list instances not of negative attitudes against nation X, but simply of each and any act by other nations that can be perceived as directed against nation X.
- Negative example: Anti-Iranianism lists wars fought against Iran by foreign nations, imperial policies by foreign nations taking advantage of Iran in some way, etc. There is no indication that these were motivated by anything like "Anti-Iranianism".

Therefore

In order to be legitimate "Anti-X'ism" article, it must be shown that:

The term "Anti-X'ism" is used widely in reliable sources, preferably not just in sources coming from the nation in question
These reliable sources must be using the term as covering all the phenomena to be treated in the article
The sources must be using the term in order to discuss the connection between all these phenomena, in the sense of establishing a common underlying tradition, historical roots, causes etc., that link the various manifestations of hostility towards X by various people at various times.

At the moment, the only articles where I can clearly see that these criteria are met are Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism. I'm open to be convinced that there are others, though.

Places in Serbia

Pa koliko se sećam, tu negde gore sam ti dao link gde imaš spisak svih mesta na Kosovu i na srpskom i na albanskom. Inače generalno se slažem da budu tri članka (Central Serbia, Vojvodina, Kosovo), ali bih ipak da se prvo dogovorimo kako ćemo ih uraditi. Znači predlažem ti ovo: napiši prvo članak za mesta Centralne Srbije pa mi reci kad bude gotov, onda ću ti reći da li tu nešto eventualno treba popraviti ili promeniti, pa ćemo se onda dogovoriti šta da uradimo sa člankom o mestima Vojvodine. Jel ok tako? Inače što se tiče članka o mestima Vojvodine, imena na drugim jezicima treba da pišu samo za mesta gde su ti narodi većinski, ali ne i za mesta gde su u većini Srbi. PANONIAN (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, napravicu Central Serbia od ponedeljka pa cemo videti za dalje. Duja► 15:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predložio bih ti samo da radi preglednosti napraviš posebnu tabelu za svaku opštinu i da sadržaj urediš onako kao u članku o mestima Vojvodine. To bi prilično olakšalo snalaženje. PANONIAN (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juraj Dalmatinac

Hi. I've just noticed your edit on the page. I think it's an improvement, as far as it can be. I was merely wondering if you droped the POV tag by accident or was there a reason for it. To me the article looks far from neutral. Am I missing something? --RedZebra 17:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duja and thanks for the explanation. I've glanced at the discussion page of JD's article only to notice that apparently Djxtra has withdrawn from the discussion which is a shame. This probably only goes to show that those who are knowledgeable about the subject are in danger of being bullied out of contributing to the article. In any case, I'll do my bit by tagging it properly. --RedZebra 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabela

Pa mislim da nije dobro da bude jedna tabela za sva mesta. Bolje bi bilo napraviti posebnu tabelu za svaku opštinu ili bar za svaki okrug i opštine treba podeliti isto po okruzima radi lakšeg snalaženja i po mogućnosti da napraviš i sadržaj, da recimo svaki okrug bude jedna stavka u sadržaju, jer ako neko recimo želi da vidi koja su mesta u pirotskom okrugu da može samo da klikne na ime okruga u sadržaju i da ode tamo. PANONIAN (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woods Point, Victoria WP:RM

Thanks for fixing --Melburnian 11:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Serbian district

Možeš li da pogledaš Template:Infobox Serbian district, mislim da sam ok napravio. Da li znaš kako da mape budu iste za okruge, kao za opštine? --Göran Smith 13:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nije loše. Ako misliš da pod "cities and towns" i "villages" stoje samo brojke, onda je u redu (mada baš i ne znam čemu bi ti podaci služili sami po sebi, ja bih ostavio samo municipalities). Što se mapa tiče, pogledaj šta ima u commons:Category:Maps of districts of Serbia — ako ti se ne sviđaju one zeleno-žute, možeš da napraviš sam

nove, bazirane na nekoj od commons:Category:Maps of municipalities of Serbia (tu sam okruge označio bledim nijansama pa samo zatamni, pazi na Severni i Srednji Banat, tu sam greškom koristio iste boje; Tip:Konvertuj prvo u BMP, sredi u Paint-u pa samo sve na kraju iskonvertuj u .png). Ako praviš sam i dosledno imenuješ slike, možeš i da izbaciš image parametar iz šablona: pogledaj kako je urađeno u {{Infobox Serbia municipality}}
[[Image:Serbia {{{name}}}.png|151px|center|Location of {{{name}}} within Serbia]]
Duja► 13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Šabloni, tabele...

Verovatno sam već i ranije rekao koliko sam ja protiv toga da se stalno menjaju šabloni, ali ako se već menjaju, onda bar nek budu kakvi treba. Dakle, sad već ima tri stvari o koje ovde treba pričati:

1. prvo taj šablon za okruge koji je napravio Goran nije dobar jer ne sadrži sve informacije koje se nalaze u starom šablonu (na primer podaci o etničkom sastavu). Dakle, to ne treba izbacivati.
2. Mislim da promena šablona za Južno-Bački okrug nije dobra, jer je mnogo teže snaći se u sadašnjem šablonu (korisniku tu baš neće biti potpuno jasno šta su opštine, itd). Ja bih radije vratio na stari.
3. Što se tiče spiska mesta u Srbiji, mislim da je dobra ideja da se članak podeli po okruzima, jer u Centralnoj Srbiji prosečna opština ima mnogo više naseljenih mesta nego prosečna opština u Vojvodini, tako da bi spisak mesta u jednom okrugu u Centralnoj Srbiji bio velik gotovo kao spisak mesta u celoj Vojvodini. Međutim, ja baš ne volim uniformizaciju svega, pa prema tome članak o mestima u Vojvodini ne mora da se deli po okruzima, jer njegova sadašnja veličina baš i nije prevelika. Što se tog članka o mestima Vojvodine tiče, mogle bi se i tu napraviti neke tabele, ali mislim da te tabele treba da se uklope u sadašnju koncepciju članka, znači da se napravi posebna tabela za svaku opštinu i da se takve tabele ubace u članak umesto spiskova, ali da ne menjaju bitno samu koncepciju članka. PANONIAN (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izvini, ali etnički sastav se ne stavlja u šablone o okruzima. To nisu toliko bitne informacije za šablon. ... bar ja to nisam video u okruzima Engleske, Amerike, Francuske, .... stavljaju se samo opšte informacije, vezane za okrug. A sve opšte informacije vezane za okrug sam stavio sa republickog sajta za statistiku. --Göran Smith 15:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nemoj mi majke ti podatke o etničkom sastavu, pogotovo ne u infobox (ček', ček', pa oni i ne stoje u svim šablonima???). Dokle ćemo insistirati na prebrojavanju na nas i njih? Razumijem da i ti podaci treba da stoje (i ne treba ih brisati), ali u bar 50% članaka o naseljima i popisima samo oni postoje -- gdje su podaci o starosnoj strukturi, obrazovanju, zaposlenju itd?
Ne znam, meni je ovaj novi pregledniji za navigaciju. Ne možeš sve detalje staviti u navbox. Ionako sam samo eksperimentisao, nemam neki tvrd stav prema tome.
Ja volim uniformnost, ali takođe ne po svaku cijenu; pitanje je gdje povući granicu. Ima smisla to što kažeš. U svakom slučaju, uradiću prvo centralnu Srbiju po okruzima, a za Vojvodinu ćemo se dogovoriti naknadno. Duja► 15:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Počeo sam ovde diskusiju o novom šablonu, pa možemo razgovor nastaviti tamo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Serbian_district Što se tiče Engleske, Francuske, itd, kod njih podaci o etničkom sastavu i ne postoje pa se zato ne stavljaju i zbog toga ne vidim kako se možemo pozivati na njih kad je njihova statistika potpuno drugačija. Inače za područje kao što je Vojvodina, podaci o etničkom sastavu su veoma bitni kad govorimo o nekom okrugu, opštini, itd...PANONIAN (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Alija Izetbegović:

You recently protected[13] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 09:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-bosnjacki sentiment, Srbofobija,...

...ne znam jesi li ucinio dobru stvar ili jos vise zapalio brisanjem tih clanaka. --PaxEquilibrium 13:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pobrisao bih ja još poneki, samo mi je rouge-o-meter malo pao poslednjih dana... Duja► 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuvaj se protiv-napada ljudi kao so su Bormalagurski, Hipi Zdripi, Afrika paprika. --PaxEquilibrium 18:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bath

Thankyou for biting the bullet to close the move to from Bath to Bath, Somerset. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Bosniak people

There's a bit of a dispute going on over at History of the Bosniak people - it's a little funny too, because the dispute is over whether a "disputed" tag should be on it (and yes, I am an involved party). I think teh article could use the help of an administrator, so would you care to take a look? —King Ivan^{Pwn3d! at the disco} 14:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bath -> Bath (city)

With all due respect, I think you inadvertently made a significant error in how you counted the votes. In particular, you effectively counted any vote that merely reflected a preference for an alternate name as non-support for the move to the proposed name (when only 2 of the support votes actually opposed the proposed name). An oversight, I'm sure. Please see my revised count taking this into account on the Bath talk page and respond there. Thank you very much. --Serge 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Talk:Bath, Somerset, mostly. As for counting, I'd say that Rwendland's count is much more to the point than yours.
I'm going to a wikibreak till Monday, so I apologize for not being able to reply further. Merry Christmas in any case

. Duja► 16:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation of the name "Aa"

Saw your question now. It's pronounced [ɔ:]. Earlier the phoneme /ɔ/ was written <aa>, and when this was changed to <å> those with the surname retained the old spelling. A man in my home county though, with first name "Jo" used to write "Å" just for fun - surely you won't find many with a 3-letter name! Norsey 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Duja► 16:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice break...

and merry xmas, Duja! Asterion^talk 17:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice vacation, Duja!!!! --PaxEquilibrium 18:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statements....

"The "Serbo-Bosniak" ~~conflict~~ situation on Wikipedia"... I like the sarcasm. Sadly it is true. However, when users create sockpuppets to prove their (often) "wrong" points, is when Wikipedia has some serious problems. I see you have stated that there are ethic disputes. I would say that the ethnic disputes relate to BiH only. I mean there are not, maybe some, disputes over Serbian articles (by Serbian ones that relate to the country, Serbia). The ones that are really disputed, for absurd reasons, are articles such as Srebrenica, RS, etc. People from the outside join in on to dispute over Bosnian articles. Thanks, Vseferović 16:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to contact you for a long time, to try to discuss some open issues. There is a lot of low kicks and dirty moves on both sides — I wouldn't enter into enumeration of those moves now; I don't want to assess the blame, as I'd prefer to settle some kind of consensus instead. I don't have much time these days, so I'd just pinpoint some pages that would benefit from discussion and WP:AGF:

City Infobox issues. Lots of edit warring on town articles, with open issues that could be solved relatively easily:
- One or two infoboxes (IMO, clearly one, but...)
- The issue of "double names" for BiH towns (and article titles, consequently)
- 1991 census results: "Bosniaks" or "Muslims by nationality"
Ethnicity of Mehmed Paša Sokolović, Meša Selimović, Ivo Andrić
Cyrillic issues
Bosnian war issues (the most difficult and sensitive ones):
- Actually, Serb editors mostly stray away from Srebrenica massacre, Osli73 (talk · contribs)/KarlXII (talk · contribs) being the most active on the "pro-Serb" side.
- Republika Srpska issues: it's difficult to find a balance between the "genocidal entity" and the "establishment of Serbs' national autonomy"
- There are some WP:POVFORK articles related with war crimes and ethnic and national genesis, which are a thorn in my eye (later)

Basically, the overall problem is strong WP:TIGER-like POV-pushing on both sides. While I e.g. acknowledge that Serb side has a bigger share of the blame for the war and crimes, I can't accept the articles like List of Serb war criminals either. Often, the best course of action is to just present the facts and let them speak for themselves, but too many people won't accept anything less than "Serbs are genocidal" or "Alija Izetbegovic is an Islamic fundamentalist". But, I'm sad that there's too little article talk (even if fierce) and too much graffiti-like statements in the articles. Duja► 20:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duja, who asked you to acknowledge anything? If that's your opinion, then fine - just don't state it as fact, because it's only your opinion.--Еstavisti 22:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's my opinion if you like it phrased that way; talk pages are normally used for exchange of opinions. Is there a problem with that? Duja► 08:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your opinion. In the same way that it's David Irving's opinion is that the Nazis didn't kill six million Jews. A political, racist, opinion, which is not based on any evidence. Do I think there's a problem with that? Yes. Do I think you should be allowed to spout bullshit, if that's what you're asking me? Totally. Just as I should be allowed to say it's bullshit. --Еstavisti 00:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your unprovoked spilling of venom on my talk page. Ah, and you have just set a speed record for invoking Godwin's Law. Duja► 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have this whole "Serbs are guilty" attitude, and imply that's the attitude we should all have. --Еstavisti 08:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly resent that, and I'm strongly against appointing the blame and bias towards any ethnic group as such (as many of my editorial actions would confirm). And I used the term "Serb side", which does not equate to "Serbs". I am of the opinion though, that Karadžić, Mladić and the clique are monstruous lunatics, sentenced or not. And I'm also of opinion that it doesn't exempt war criminals and leaders of the other sides from their share of accountability. Nor do I think that any nation's victim syndrome, however justifiable or not, should affect the contents of Wikipedia articles. Duja► 11:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Izetbegović dispute

Duja, on your return could you please respond to the points here. Thank you. 217.134.87.51 17:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive disambiguation on Dazed and Confused

Do you have more than the movie to DAB to? Cos {{otheruses4}} would be sufficient to DAB to the movie from a page simply titled Dazed and Confused.

You might want to see what happened with someone did that to Rush (album) and Manowar. There are multiple precedents for making as few DAB pages as necessary, and returning presumptively-DAB'ed pages back to their original names. — edgarde 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's also the Dazed & Confused (magazine), of similar magnitude of prominence as the song and the film, judging by the number of links. Duja► 09:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the way to do this then would be to create a Dazed and Confused (disambiguation), with a {{otheruses2}} tag on Dazed and Confused, which would be the song. — edgarde 10:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's apparently no primary meaning: of ~80 links to Dazed and Confused (now dab page), ~40 were for the song, ~25 for the film, and ~15 for the magazine. Is there something changed in WP:MOSDAB that I missed? The disambiguation is not preemptive, but "post-factum". Duja► 10:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Serbophobia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GRBerry 02:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Duja/Archive 5

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion^talk 13:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunjevci and Šokci

I was wondering can you perhaps to semi-protect these two articles, so that anonymous users cannot edit them - there is pretty heavy revert war of anonymous users there right now, so something should be done about this and dispute should be moved on articles talk pages anyway. PANONIAN (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please remind me, or, better, go to WP:RFPP to unprotect them if they reach a consensus. Duja► 15:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]