User talk:Jurohi

Welcome!

Hello, Jurohi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 14:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Microsoft

Hi, Jurohi. LOL - I'm not payed by Microsoft and I am looking at the Bill Gates article objectively. I just happen to think the previous edit is more "down-the-middle", if you will. But it's certainly only my opinion. If you still feel strongly about the word change, by all means edit it again and see if it sticks. Happy editing. PJM 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slovaks

Hi, I assume it is you who has rearranged the List of Slovaks. Can you tell me whether you have left out some persons / names forms / text (because I am unable to follow the big number of changes). Thanx. Juro 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's me :).
No names were removed except the huge hockey players list, which I moved to a separate (new) article.
I plan to cleanup noble families too, keepening only the relevant individuals, since this should be the list of a singles figures, rather than families and there is a dedicated article on this issue.
BTW Glad to hear from you. I was going to ask your opinion and suggestions regarding the list. I know it is far from clean and consistent, but it's not easy to create a meaningful divisions as you can imagine. I appreciate your work, often uneasy, when discussing with our hungarian wikimates :) You have my support. Jurohi 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as for the talk pages: there is no rule, some people prefer to answer on the other user's talk page, others reply on the same page. Juro 06:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. But you are not notified if I continue answering on my page. Are you?
What about the rest? Jurohi 06:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some users use to tell on the other page that they will reply on their own page. And, I have you on my watchlist now. If the question "What about the rest" refers to the nobles, then I would say that just continue, but try not to leave out any name or family in the end. BTW, the List of Slovaks was originally meant as a starting point for seeing which articles are not written yet, hence the concept. Juro 22:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply, although you skipped few questions. I was particulary curious to hear your opinion regarding the L_of_S subdivisions, whether it be positive or negative. I take the absence of your comment for a tacit consent :).
The second issue is a constant fight with hungarian editors, which is realy frustrating. I wander if there is any sort of general solution to this problem, otherwise it turns to be a kind of Sisyphean task. But probably there is not any, beyond what you are doing already ie constant discussion and reverting. I just wanted to express my solidarity and appreciation for your patience.
Third: From time to time I watch the overwhelming amount of your contributions, which makes me realy curious to learn something more about you. How can you afford to dedicate all that energy and time to wikipedia? And especialy what is the impulse behind your effort? It cannot be just philantrophy. Or is it just that? Please forget these questions, if you find them too personal, plus sorry in advance if this is the case. Jurohi 03:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you have my tacit consent. Although, technically, I think it is better to have a more general subdivision, because then persons belonging into several "categories" can be categorized and found more easily. So from this point of view, maybe it would be better to find something between the old and the new subdivision, but otherwise the subdivision is OK. And for the Hungarian editors (but it is not so much the Hungarian editors, rather a group of Hungarian vandals that are the problem here [unless the vandals are the editors under different names]), if you think that what you have seen recently is a problem, I can only tell you, you have seen nothing yet (all the discussions long time ago etc.). There are no rules for such things here and unfortunately these things are considered normal in the meantime here. As for me, I dedicate more to the wikipedia than I want, but in "absolute numbers" it is not that much. And wikipedia's success is based on the energy of exactly such "idiots" like me. But, if I was not here, Košice would be under Kassa, all Slovaks would be under Hungarians or Poles, and there would be no article about Slovakia besides Bratislava, Tatra and Kassa. And if you look at the current state of Slovakia-related articles, the wikipedia would need at least 5 such editors like me, because many elementary persons and places are still, basically everything, is still missing here. Juro 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that people falling into multiple categories is a major problem. Eventualy it will be resolved when the article will split as the list will grow (same as for poets and writers). Other solutions are possible, however for now I am glad of readability and especialy editability being enhanced.
Regarding the 'Hungarian vandals and non' issue: Thanks a lot for illumination. Apparently more editors are highly desirable. I will try to help although my limited resources allow me to add only bits (I feel constantly guilty after spending hours in front of the box) and unfortunately I am not particulary strong in geopolitical history and related issues. However I would try to sensibilize and involve some other guys. I realy don't like the idea of Slovakia still being just Upper Hungary...
The topics discussed could probably deserve the attention of institutions. This might be the right direction where to look for the help. It is quite unfair how much must depend on generous ethusiasts like you. Anyway things are evolving quickly and being positive minded I hope they will change for better. Meenwhile I realy do wish that you will not loose your passion and patience. Until the time when you will be properly rewarded for what you are doing, at least many thanks and good luck. Jurohi 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not missed the reply, I just agree with what you are saying, so I have not seen a special reason for replying. And concerning my "catching changes in the sk wiki" - I do not understand the question - how am I "catching" the changes there?? I basically add "one" link a month to the sk wiki, which is nothing; and generally I just guess and try and if the link works, I keep it. There is no special procedure. Juro 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not having been clear enough. I wasn't talking about sk-wiki, rather I ment Slovakia related articles (or possibly any other topic of your preference) here on interwiki. Apparently there is some mechanism (unkown to me), which notifies you when a new article is created within the area of your interest. I am asking since I was amazed how quickly you correct articles that were just created. How do you find them? Two examples to be even clearer: morena and kukura. You can't just scan all new articles, can you? Am I missing something? Jurohi 08:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I see...The answer is very simple: I have virtually all existing Slovaki-related articles on my watchlist and if someone apppears and changes something there I check his past edits - recently, I have done this for Tankred and for you, for example, and this is how I can check whether the user is a vandal and at the same time see and check his other contributions, if necessary. The I add the articles to my watchlist and the whole procedure continues as above...And a concathedral, as far as I know, is the main church of an archbishopric (a cathedral being the main church of a bishopric). Maybe someone should write an article about this, if it does not exist yet. Juro 05:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I thought there was some wikiadmin-hacking-magic involved. The list must be huge. :) Thanks. Jurohi 05:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Interpreters

I tried to search through some Wikipedia articles to see, which word is used there, and I think "instrumentalist" could the one we seek. Before I did this, I also asked Avraham why he reverted my edit at the List of Slovaks, so we can also wait for his opinion (according to his Babel chart he is a native English speaker).

Jan.Kamenicek 19:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olessi IT

I have the interwiki links there so I can quickly access my accounts on the other language Wikipedias, even if I don't use them often. I do have the account Olessi on the Italian wiki (see it:Speciale:Contributions/Olessi, but I never created an actual User Page for it. Olessi 09:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oecher

Oecher has nothing to do with Slovakia or Slovaks aside from being born in Bratislava, which itself was a German-populated city at the time. It states clearly he was a German etcher who barely spent any significant time in Slovakia. It is silly to include him. Antidote

There were many disputes about who is apropriate to include where. The basic question is: What is the criteria to label a person as belonging to a certain nation? AFAIK everybody-satisfying asnwer was not found yet. Is it one's birthplace, citizenship, his native language, his parents nationality, the place where he spent most of the time, his own feeling about the issue, his blod or race (just to name few)? All this information is rarely available even for the living people and gets more and more blury and incomplete when going to the past. So unless one's name is John Smith born in England to English parents the things can become complicated. The solution adopted by most of the people is that of the overlaping sets ie. multiple label are allowed.
I admit that you might complain if the article's name List of Slovaks was to be taken strictly. However as you can see from the article's content (as well as contents of other similar articles), this should be refered to more properly as something like List of Slovaks and people related to Slovakia or of Slovak descent which would be somehow long as article's name. If you still feel strongly about being right go ahead with removing, but to be coherent you should remove many others too eg. Harry Houdini in the List of people from New York, since he was Hungarian but you should probably remove him also from the List of Hungarians since he was a Jew too (just one for all).
Anyway thanks for your other contributions to List of Slovaks. Regards. Jurohi 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slovaks (recent changes)

Hi. As one of the main editors of the List of Slovaks, maybe you can express your opinion about an ongoing dispute. An IP is trying to remove many names from the list because of their ambiguous "national identity". Those changes are quite significant and it seems to me that they are inspired by a nationalistic POV. Although I have been successful in reverting them so far, it would be better if other editors of the list, who are not involved in this particular dispute, express their opinion too and if a more general consensus is reached. Tankred 10:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, an edit war started again there. And it will be even worse soon. Unfortunately, I will not have much time to look after this article. Cheers. Tankred 12:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Img noise1e.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Img noise1e.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

I was worried when you disappeared and I am really happy that you are active again. Tankred 06:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing scientifically correct information from "The Naked Ape" article.

As humans fall under the kingdom Animalia, as opposed to any other kingdom, they are animals. If they are not, they are either protists, plants, or fungi. They do not fit the qualifications of those other groups, and thus fall under Animalia. Lord Patrick 01:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSk template

Hello,

I have recently created a template which can be used on their user pages by those, who contribute to the Slovak Wikipedia as well. If you do and if you are interested, you can have a look at Template:User wikisk. Jan.Kamenicek 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frantisekvelecky101.jpg

Hello, Jurohi. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Frantisekvelecky101.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Jurohi/notes. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak Wikipedians' notice board

Hi. You might be interested in checking out the brand new Wikipedia:Slovak Wikipedians' notice board. All Wikipedians interested in Slovakia or subjects somehow related to Slovakia are invited to use this noticeboard as a tool for better organizing their activities, making announcements to others with similar interests, and discussing any actual issues related to their work on Wikipedia. You are welcome to add this notice board to your watchlist, so that you could see when it is updated and thus take part in any projects, initiatives, and improvements relating to articles about Slovakia. Also, you are welcome to report your own articles here so they could be peer-reviewed and expanded by other contributors. Tankred 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jurohi, good to hear from you. It has been a long time and many things have happened. As to Juro, he was banned for use of sockpuppets and there is practically no way how this ban can be lifted. He had already been on probation. Bratislava is very close to become the first article about Slovakia achieving an FA status. Several people (including me) have been working hard on that article, but I would give the main kudos to a relatively new user from Bratislava, MarkBA. Please feel free to suggest further improvements either here or on the article’s talk page. Or you can edit the article yourself – if I can conjure to writing about Slovakia again:-) Anyway, please do not forget to cast your ballot on the FAC page when you are satisfied with the article. Jurohi, I know how frustrating some people here can be, but I still look forward to your full return. Tankred 23:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Slovakia, an attempt to build and maintain a large and neutral database of Slovakia-related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of WikiProject Slovakia.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Frantisekvelecky101.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Frantisekvelecky101.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV on Bat out of Hell III: The Monster Is Loose

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Bat out of Hell III: The Monster Is Loose appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, this looks to me like an automated edit, or copy-paste. Anyway, I don't feel like starting a long useless discussion. I just wander if you have checked the argument we are talking about. Have you? It is well known (among those who know the topic) that the artist we are talking about is few classes bellow the other two. While I perfectly agree with the NPOV policy, in your terms we should practically stop using adjectives. Welcome to Wikipedia to you too, but please put some time and read before doing indiscriminate automated reverts. Answer welcome. Jurohi (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jurohi. Having read your addition, I fully agree with Kevin's points. It would have been acceptable to cite an established critic published in a reliable source making a similar assertion, but as Wikipedia editors we must be neutral. Established Wikipedia editors regularly use standard messages (like above) to save time explaining common errors. However, the revert itself was not automated (you can usually tell by the specificity of the edit summary). Thanks, The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JPS. I appreciate your polite tone and explanation, however I must pose the same question, which was not answered: Have you checked the topic before judging? I mean, did you see the 3 images in question? Thanks.Jurohi (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am very familiar with all three albums and their packaging, that is irrelevant. Any judgment about quality, or interpretation, is subjective, and it is not for us, mere Wikipedia editors to make. In this respect, perhaps the more relevant policy is no original research. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply to Kevin below which apply to both of you.

Jurohi, I'm sorry if my use of a standard-issue template offended you; The JPS has explained my purpose in using it, which was not part of an indiscriminate revert. JPS also nailed all the points I might have made regarding the edit and related policy, so I'll leave it at that... except to say that I too am quite familiar with all three album covers — and, to be frank, personally agree with you about the inferiority of the third — but, as JPS put it, my opinion is irrelevant. Thank you both for engaging in this discussion. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin. Thanks for your reply. Sorry for being spiky. I was not offended, rather I was amused after reading "Welcome to Wikipedia", and so I could not avoid a bit of irony. It is that I have had quite a bad experience with some wikipedians, so I may be a bit defensive. In the past I was involved in several time consuming discussions pointing nowhere, which I would like to avoid. Your good faith is clear now so no problem. Jurohi (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Kevin and JPS: I am glad to hear you both know the subject, so although not completely convinced, I must say you win (2:1) :). Let's consider the issue of the covers closed. However you raised another more important question, and if you don't mind spending few more minutes reading and answering this, it will be greatly appreciated: I knew about NPOV policy, but "no original research" and "verifiability" are new to me (thanks JPS for pointing me there). After reading them I must say, you (or better say those policies) practically crashed my whole little wikiworld. If those policies were to be strictly applied, IMHO some 80% of Wikipeadia would be gone, and it would be a pity (again IMHO). The number (80) may vary widely depending on your personal experience (i.e. which kind of pages do you read). Obviously I have no authority to question those policies decided by many, so please don't take this as arguing. Just I feel really confused and I am trying to rebuild my view to editing. Wikipedia is intrinsically unreliable (or not 100% reliable), although we all wish the contrary. Apparently the 2 policies address this problem, but what would happen if the "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source" principle was strictly applied? I have believed that the basic mechanism to guarantee (or at least to try) the correctness of the info in Wikipedia is the editors community consensus (or disapproval). Probably the question was not clearly stated, but I am sure you understand what I am talking about, so looking forward for your suggestions. Jurohi (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely right in your observations about the quality of many Wikipedia articles. This is an unavoidable problem with an open source project. The policies you mention are the goal, but, unfortunately, there are far less editors who are willing to spend time to develop articles properly. To be honest, I produced many what I now know to be substandard articles in my first year. However, once one becomes aware of the standards we aim for, there is no excuse for breaching them. Practically every fact I've added in the last two years has been supported by a source. If you take a look at this page, you will see the changes being made to the project this minute. You will probably notice that there are a lot of unregistered users. Some will be good edits, but most not. The result is the phenomenon you mention ("some 80% of Wikipeadia would be gone"). We have a guideline, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
We have formal peer review processes to select the best quality articles. All three Bat albums have been certified good -- I myself spent many hours getting them to that standard. The ultimate standard is featured.
"...principle was strictly applied?" There are some steps an editor can take to express concern over an article's lack of referencing. One can place the {{unreferenced}} tag at the top (e.g. Granada Television). If there is a particular statement within an article that is unreferenced, then you can add {{fact}} next to it, highlighting to any interested parties that a reference should be found. After a grace period, the offending statement can be removed if no reference has been provided. Such tags can look ugly if used over-zealously, though. Unreferenced negative assertions about living persons must be removed immediately, without a grace period.
"Wikipedia is intrinsically unreliable". Indeed. It presents the casual reader with an overview of a topic, whilst a well referenced article allows the interested reader to follow links to a reliable source. Many articles that don't cite their sources are truthful, and useful for the general reader. But, without those references, how are we supposed to tell the difference? Some kids are trying to use Wikipedia to spread a rumour about a fifth film in the Scream (film series). They added a paragraph [1], with reference. However, checking the ref reveals that they haven't been truthful about what their source is saying...
I'm not sure I've answered your question. Probably raised new ones!! The JPS ^{talk to me} 02:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK JPS, thanks for your time. I have read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Again it was new to me, so I updated my knowledge of Wikipedia policies. However my point was not "I want to do it wrong way since many others do too". I don't cite an article, instead I relate to the whole (or large part) of Wikipedia. The rules are useful, but as with any system of laws, blindly following them may not always be the best thing to do. Basically I am saying that perhaps some more space might be given to common sense, especially in the context of the project where anonymous IP is allowed to write anything. I would see such strict policies logical within Britannica, and inside Wikipedia I would label them more as guide lines. But of course, who am I to say :). I see Wikipedia more like an index of potentially useful but unsafe info, which may are may not be true (tough most of it probably being true). The point is that if we striped out all unreferenced stuff, it would still remain unsafe, since no one guarantees that the references are valid. I feel this is not far from how you have stated it above. Having agreed on this point I believe it is better having 100 insecure words rather than having them 20 referenced, but still insecure. Still no doubt that referenced is better. To conclude, I am curious to hear you position on the following example: Recently I did an edit about a software. You can check here: VMware Workstation (the piece about 2 CPU limit). The piece of info I added is quite important for the users, and should be present in product's documentation. But it is not. There is no way to find it in any text available on-line. I tested the software to get the answer and I put it to the article in belief it can be helpful to somebody. But, according to the policies it would be considered "original research", may be verifiable (one should install the software to verify tough), but still not conform with the policies. Would you remove it? I dare to say that most of those who read that article would not agree. So how do we want to take the rules? Jurohi (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jurohi! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 139 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Juraj Kukura - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BSDF function image

Jurohi, I really like your BSDF image. Can you update it with an SVG version (it's got a spelling mistake (transmition)? I'd like to use it on the Path tracing page as well. Cheers, jonon (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). I will. Just I have to find it (it may take a while). Jurohi (talk)

Leopoldo Galtieri

Whatever your opinion, WP isn't censored so please do not vandalise the article again. L3 Vandalism warning as I presume given the message on my talk page the IP edit is your own. Vandalism includes inserting misleading information, like trying to wipe out the Military Dictatorship as governing Argentina.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Leopoldo Galtieri, you may be blocked from editing. Justin talk 13:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Justin. Yes IP 93.. was me. Frankly I don't understand why all that hostility and intimidation in your lines...? I may have been wrong. I admit I am not an expert in Argentinian history, but I can assure you that my intentions were genuinely positive. I didn't mean to offend anybody. I simply noticed that the sequence of presidents contained few logical errors (still does) and I tried to correct that. I did my first WP edit some 4 years ago, but I was never called a vandal. Let's be constructive. Please check my reasoning bellow:
One would expect that the words Preceded by and Succeeded by would safely move you back and forth in the chronological line of presidents. Unfortunately presidents since No44 to No48 are slightly messed up (check yourself). There are 2 presidents with the same index 45 (Leopoldo Galtieri and Carlos Lacoste). No 44 Roberto Eduardo Viola + 'succeeded by' points to Carlos Lacoste and No45Leopoldo Galtieri points to No48!!! Moreover there is no No46! My edit was intended to make order in the sequence. This way it would also be consistent with the Spanish version of WP.
If I am wrong, please explain why. In any case you should be more careful before calling people vandals. Looking forward for your explanation. Jurohi (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore content that I have removed from my talk page. I have a notice that I remove content I have no intent of archiving and have done for some time.

Secondly, the Spanish wikipedia is sadly hardly a reliable source or a source, since anything related to Argentina is policed by a hard core of nationalists. They seek to expunge the Dirty War period. This is why wikipedia is out of whack as they remove the military presidents.

Finally, there is nothing hostile or intimidating in anything I wrote, your edit to remove information was vandalistic in nature. You restored it having challenged it, I suggest you read the essay WP:BRD next time if you restore content that is vandalistic, don't be surprised to be labelled a vandal. Justin talk 19:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not restore anything on your page. Check better, you will see. Again you are accusing without a reason. Anyway, having said that, thanks for your reply. I got your point about Spanish WP. Still I am missing an explanation regarding the main point of the controversy - what is wrong with my edit and why you called me vandal. I repeat, there was nothing political or offensive. I simply tried to adjust the correct order of a sequence 44-45-46-47-48. Now it is 44<45a>45b, 44<45b>48, no 46 etc... In other words, the sequence is messed up, the preceding and succeeding links are inconsistent as well as index numbers 44 45 45 47. Am I missing something? Please enlighten me. Thanks in advance. Jurohi (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did, you restored an earlier message. I am not accusing you of anything, merely asking you not to do it again. I have also provided you with an explanation, the Galtieri article is correct, vandalism on the others is the issue. Justin talk 11:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not! Obviously you answered without verifying. Please, see your revert at 15:05 22august. Apparently you thought you were reverting to your previous version but there was 1 more edit (by bot), so it was YOU who reverted to my edit not me.

We seem to have the similar situation with the main point: you have not yet provided any real argument to explain why you believe that 2 persons should be labeled as president of Argentina No45. You didn't show who is the president No46 and there was no comment about other preceding - succeeding inconsistencies. Thanks. Jurohi (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BSSDF01 400.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:BSSDF01 400.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:BSDF05 800.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar

Hi,

thanks for the nice BSDF explanation picture! I really like it and I would use it for T-shirt. Seriously. I'm into image synthesis and I think such T-shirt would fit me well. Would it be possible to obtain the vector version of the image so I can create a high-res version for printing? I can add you name/signature on it to honour the author of the graphics if you you wish. Thanks! Ivokabel (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jurohi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jurohi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jurohi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Danubit

The article Danubit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since creation in 2006. No indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. R333ct0r (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:BSSDF01 400.png

The file File:BSSDF01 400.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused file, SVG available on Commons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. creffett (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Frantisekvelecky101.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frantisekvelecky101.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]