User talk:Miguel.mateo/Archives/2008/October

Scottish independence

Miguel, late last night you reverted the changes that I made to the article on Scottish Independence. I am really vexxed that you felt the need to do this because I was editing provocative vandalism in the article and I clearly stated my actions in the Edit Summary!

What was written on this article was politically antagonistic material that can - and does - cause offence. It has blatantly been written by a member of a Scottish seperatist movement and has been done so in provocation of those who do not share similar political bias.

I suggest therefore that you revert your actions and allow for these changes to occur. (Rapsodia (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Rapsodia, you removed requests for facts and citations, if you have the reference then add them to the article and you can remove the tags. If you have questions about how to create a reference, just pick one section of the article and we can work it together; I have no issues helping you to get the article better if those are your intentions. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually work for Wikipedia or do you just sit at your computer all day looking to cause offense to other Wikipedia users?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapsodia (talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither, I would suggest you listen and try to understand what you're doing wrong. We all make mistakes at the beginning in Wikipedia, but listening to others is what makes us better. Again, if you feel you're right there are better ways to fix the issue. Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that you are causing offense since you deem it appropriate and are in agreement that this offensive material should continue to exist on this article. It is not a question of finding a better solution, it is about standards! Double Standards! It is fine for you to revert the provocative political vandalism that I cut, however, I do not see you going through the rest of the article that is in agreement with Scottish independence and marking the vast amounts of disputed "facts" there. You clearly therefore do not care that you are causing offense to fellow users such as myself.

If you feel that the rest of the article is 'provocative' (I am not sure this is the right word but ...) feel free to add {{fact}} tags where ever you feel that the article requires a citation. This conversation, in this talk page is also useless: bring this point to the talk page of the article. I am very interested in how the "Scottish Independence" thing finishes, but I am completely neutral to it; I do not even live in the Eurozone. You will see me fighting vandalisms like the one you did in any article, regardless of what I think is right or wrong.

I think I have given you enough explanation of what needs to be done to put the article in a good state, if you are a serious editor you will take my advice (and my help if needed). Again, continuing that conversation here has no benefit.

And finally, always use ~~~~ when finishing your own comments in a talk page, that will create your signature. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, well I am asking you for your help now. Since you claim to be such a Messiah of knowledge in Wikipedia editing, please remove the offensive content that I speak of which are the petty and pedantic disputed fact markers in the opposition section of the article. Until you do that, you are being of no help whatsoever. Rapsodia (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am just a simpler user with a bit over one year experience using Wikipedia, nothing special. You're asking me to do something you can do yourself, this is not how this is going to work. Find the references, fix the article, nobody will question that if your sources are accurate and reliable. Until then you will be considered a vandal if you continue doing what you just did. If you need HELP on HOW to place a reference in the article, then I can help you. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But I have done this myself - several times - but people like you stop it from being authorised, even when the reason is entirely legitimate!! I have used sources here in the past and people have taken them out because they cannot handle the truth of the matter. Rapsodia (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, how does one know exactly when an article has been edited and by whom?...Rapsodia (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Give reliable sources and nobody will question that; if they do, bring the conversation to the talk page of the article. You removed requests for references, that is no good unless you provide the reference.

About your second question, check the history tab on top of any page, that will give you the list of changes and the editors. If you are uncertain about an editor, click on the name and then on the left menu check "contributions"; this will tell you the recent contributions of that particular editor to all articles he/she has contributed to.

Again, if you're serious about Scottish independence, pick one paragraph that you do not like and I will help you to work it out, but you have to find the references. I hope this helps, Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer to my question on how to view and certain alter changes made. I can assure you that I am going to play this game too. Rapsodia (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Urban vs Lojka

Hey Miguel, I've added the appropriate references for Lojka. German Wikipedia has a lot about Lojka too but I can't read German. Cheers! http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Lojka

Perhaps a redirect could be added from Lojka to Loyka or vice-versa. 203.196.81.139 (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better now, thanks. You should get an account by the way. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Greece

Hey Miguel, Great start on the Greece article, I am delighted to see activity on the project, I will try to help out at Christmas as I am doing studies atm. Kevin hipwell (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. I have never stopped: some days I have more time than others, some days I feel more of uploading images (like yesterday), some days I feel more of enhancing the content, some days I feel more of looking for market prices ... but I am always here, I am not gone and of course the project is ongoing ;) Good luck with your studies. Any news about the Irish coins or the Luxembourg set? Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email yesterday about the Irish coins, as for the Luxembourg They have not been issued yet I expect to get them about 10-20th December just like last year. Kevin hipwell (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Javelin throw

The links I removed seem to fall quite clearly into the definition given by item 13 of WP:EL#AVOID for a type of link we shouldn't have: "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject." It goes on to say: "If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked." Do you disagree with that guideline? 69.63.55.224 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Will check that in a few minutes. Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have carefully reviewed every link there, and true there are all about T&F stats, but some of them have a long section and easy to find link about Javelin throwing. Unless you find links more specific for Javelin throwing your statement about WP:EL#AVOID does not apply. I have removed the ones not related to the sport. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. For the stats links, there are many places on the Web giving these statistics and it's not necessary to link ALL of them. Since we have links to the javelin-specific stats there's no need to also have links to all T&F stats including javelin. For the IAAF, they have a large and detailed Web site and there's plenty of opportunity to link to the specific sections; it's not necessary (and violates policy) to link to the top page of the site and expect users to navigate in. Since the IAAF is relevant (it's the governing body, after all) then a link to the IAAF Wikipedia article would be appropriate, and the javelin article already seems to contain one. There is no burden of proof on me to find a better link before removing an inappropriate one - such a rule would make spam removal nearly impossible. I also don't understand why you've twice changed the title of the section from "External links" to "References". That's not a borderline issue, nor anything I'd have expected anyone to care strongly about: it's standard Wikipedia practice that external links go in a section called "External links" whereas a section called "References" is for the bibliographic references from in-text citations. Calling the external links section "References" is simply incorrect. 69.63.55.224 (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The change back to "External links" it is just a side effect of reverting. I needed the previous links to check them, so I had no choice but to revert your removal. I see you have been more flexible this time and now there are more links to sites with valuable information and stats about the sport, so I will leave it as it is. BTW, I seriously encourage you to get your own account. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

About coins

Do you collect €2 commemorative coins? (Just asking because there is now a campaign in Finland where you can preorder the newest coin that celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the face value (+delivery). There will 1 500 000 coins made, but only a limited amount is available without going through the standard circulation first, for citizens I guess. The orders have to be placed before 24 October.) hydrox (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have all €2 commemorative coins, including Pricess Kelly of Monaco 2007, this year I am missing Finland, Italy and Vatican City, since they are not released. The Finnish coin is in my opinion one of the most beatiful coins ever minted. However, I do not live in Europe, and getting these coins is really difficult for me :( Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Miguel, I can order this Finnish coin for you! It only costs the face value + delivery + the funds transfer costs (1€ by PayPal). The delivery would be the most expensive part - 3.90€ to my address in Finland and from here on to Tokyo, depending on the type of the letter - uninsured priority letters start from 0.80€. Please contact my by email if you are interested. More information about this coin (in Finnish only) is available at this address https://www.2euroa.fi/. We can also negotiate an exchange if you will. hydrox (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail! Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I checked that site, there seems like a new 100 euro coin will be minted soon. Do you have information about this coin in English? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are propably refereing to this coin. It is a gold coin, and the face value is 100€ - but the collector's value for the coin is set at 425€ including delivery. The coin commemorates the Finnish War in 1808-1809 and the birth of Grand Duchy of Finland in 1809. Grand Duchy of Finland was the first time that the area which is nowdays known as Finland was formed as an autonomously governed area - before which Finland had been just a part of Swedish realm and even before that, feared pagan wildlands :) hydrox (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi hydrox is there any online website I can purchase the coin from?Kevin hipwell (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hydrox, I lost your mail, do you mind mailing me again? I would love to get a roll of this coin and I can definitely send you Japanese coins if you're interested. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hola Miguel :)

Hmmm, low key is always good. Remind yourself that you're here forever and they might just be playing games. Don't worry about getting changes overnight, and don't expect everyone to be reasonable. Getting other people involved is often good, though it can be a bit risky if you just post general requests for help. Calling in long term editors who work in the subject area of the dispute is probably ideal. I'm happy to drop in and see if they can explain why they think it's so important to delete all See also links. Everything depends on their motives. What do they really want, why and how much do they want it. I suppose you've already asked them. Two to one is never consensus, especially if the two have never shown any attempt to accomodate or address the views of the third person they are blocking. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asking for advice on the process, since it is obvious in one of their talk pages that one is asking help to the other. I was clean and explain in that talk page that what they did is not cool. The talk apge got longer and somebody was willing to compromise, but as expected they did nothing. So I simply gave up and will no longer watch that page, I already told them that so good luck to them fighting vandalism. What I do need help is knowing what is the process to get somebody with "administrative rights" involved, because an obvious team up to go against another editor is not good. I am sure they both know it is not good. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The policies are at WP:Dispute resolution. Specific processes of different types can be initiated via Requests for Comment (RfC), Requests for Mediation, notifying administrators of an incident (ANI), and the very informal Wikiquette Alert (WQA). My own experience of the usefulness and efficiency of these methods is not a happy one, but that probably has more to do with the particular kind of stubborn editors I was seeking help with, than with the processes. I'm quite serious that I've seen and participated in many happily, quickly settled disputes, none of which involved any formal process. That's why I made some suggestions of informal approaches. Things can get emotional and time consuming if processes are used to attempt to enforce results. It's no surprise on reflection.

The dispute resolution (DR) and related policy pages are well written with many excellent suggestions, including the value of informal methods of resolution. Hope that's a better answer to your question. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As usual, thank you very much! Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Marcinelle

Hi, i've read only now your second message about Marcinelle cause it was too late. So, i've removed that category and by now i'll explain it in detail: It could be considered a "town" as village, but this category is reserved to municipalities with city status. Marcinelle is not a municipality (it's an hamlet -hameau, ortsteil, wies, frazione, civil parrish, pueblo, freguesia-) and of course it hasn't a city status in Belgium.

The issue is:

• If the category "cities and towns in Belgium" is a cat reguarding municipalities with city status (as it seems, also because there is a category of belgian municipalities) Marcinelle must not stay there. It could be a risk to have a category with lot of miscellaneous articles reguarding various "places"
• If the category is simply for belgian inhabited settlements the issue is different. But it seems to me very strange that it exists a category for municipalities who is a subcat of a miscellaneous category "from Bruxelles to littlest village".

I suppose the goal of category is the first one, also because it has only more than 200 pages in it, and the municipalities are more than 500, so a miscellaneous might have municipalities+hamlets...

Question: For some nations there are categories reguarding hamlets. If there is one also for Belgium the logical solution is to include them in that one (and, of course, also in it's municipal category, if it exists). Greetings and good work --87.16.154.2 (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: This is my hypothesis and doubt, sorry if i'm wrong. In that case, rollbacking, take care of new alignment of pictures (by right). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.154.2 (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I think this should be brought up somewhere else. How about creating an account for you? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edits to Finland as vandalism

You reverted my edit 246288050 on Finland as vandalism but it wasn't, you could have reverted the edits either side of it or put back in the needed fact tag because claiming a blogger was arrested for talking about statistics does need a citation since the idea seems incredulous. Sure it was an accident because the edits either side of mine were vandalism, but if you didn't notice my edit was legitimate and it had been an addition or correction of information then it would have been lost.

Reverting my edit wasn't a big deal but it was mistake...

Apologies for that, it is exactly what you mentioned: your edit was immediately after vandalism, and so the edit after you. It is difficult to remove them and then add your changes back; this is a risk in Wikipedia: when good faith edits are done inside vandalism edits, it is probable that the good faith edits goes as well in the removal process. I would be more careful if you were using a Wikipedia account, since I can easily see that there are different editors. Why don't you create your own account to avoid this problem in the future? Thanks and apologies once again, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Palace of Knossos commemorative coin images

Hello and thank you for your contributions. I'm adding this note to inform you that I have removed the Palace of Knossos commemorative coin images images that you recently added to the 2004 Summer Olympics and Knossos articles, since they appear to violate Wikipedia fair use guidelines for images. If you disagree and believe these to be free images, please update the copyright information on the image pages before adding them back into the articles. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(moved from User talk:Tcncv#Fair_use_of_currency_images)

Hi there,

For currency images, the fair use rationale explicitely says that can be used as long as the coin is either described or critized. The coin is described in both of the articles your removed them, hence there is no problem on the fair use rationale of the image. Let me know if my understanding is incorrect.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The guideline I see is "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject.". That would make it appropriate for the Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Greece) article, but not the 2004 Summer Olympics and Knossos articles. Do you have a different guideline reference? -- Tcncv (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Right from the license paragraph attached to the coin (important in bold): "This image depicts a unit of currency. Some currency designs are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain. Others are copyrighted. In these cases, their use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself. Any other usage of them, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information."

BTW, you did show me a mistake in one of my posts that I will fix immediately, the image is incorrect in one of them. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Check Billy Ripken specially the copyrighted picture of the baseball card. This is one of the samples mentioned all over Wikipedia about a good use of a fair use rationale. The coins in question apply to the same standards IMO. I hope is clearer now. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm not fully convinced the use is appropriate, but I'm no expert, so I'll yield. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Belgium

Thanks for your various reverts, especially today's regarding "...350 years....marraige was over". It is releaving to know that many eyes are watching for unnecessary deletions. As you may or may not know, the contentious nature of the relationship between Flemish/Dutch is a favorite topic of mine. I will continue to always combat attempts to negate my Heritage...or flavor it with Dutch seasoning. Thanks, my friend.--Buster7 (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am watching over 700 articles, and I am really serious about vandalisms, sources and removals without discussions. "Your" articles are safe as long as I am not on holiday ;) BTW, thanks on the Greece article! Let me know once you're finished. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Irish coins

Miguel I am not sure if you have read your emails lately. Your Irish order is on its way. Kevin hipwell (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I will reply you later from my office, I have been out for five days ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I got my coins today, let us know when yours arrive Kevin hipwell (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The first two gold coins in my collection just arrived today! The Antartic explorers coins is absolutely beatiful! Thanks a lot for your help! Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

NP, Glad it arrived safely.Kevin hipwell (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am bidding in eBay for the Luxembourg set, hopefuly around 200 euro. Coin dealers are selling them from 230 to 260. Did you get yours? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not yet I hope it arrives soon. Kevin hipwell (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)