User talk:Svetovid/Archive 2

Bratislava

Hi, I see you've noticed that Bratislava has been promoted to GA status. Now I would like to ask, when we have passed this one, what do you think this article needs to push it forward to FA? Also, I'm considering sending it to peer review for more feedback. What do you think? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow the to do table :)--Svetovid 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, to the Economy section "construction boom" paragraph, I've started doing it at my sandbox, because I think this needs tweaking and checking before submitting into the article. What do you think, could you help me to prepare this one? (You can reply here) MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll check and correct your final version, but I don't have time to do research and such this weak.--Svetovid 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So it seems I'm alone to do this one... but I agree, this is particularly weak and sensitive on citations topic. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We only need a few sentences so I believe it shouldn't be a problem for you :).--Svetovid 20:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh. Thank you for bringing this link to me. The data presented were just identical with the old version so I reverted them back and sourced. Now Demographics section should be OK for now (unless new estimate comes out or census will take place). So all we need is to do on the to-do table, though from the peer review where you conflicted, he said that Gov't section should be more coherent plus in more detail, but I'm not so sure with that detail. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. No, I'm not going to comment your skirmish with User:Caroig, but as usual, something with Bratislava article. I've seen that we have received some comments from WP:CITIES project, and one of the recommendations is to trim the History section. Since you are the author of most of that material, you may wish to look and edit that section so it summarizes briefly only more important facts and the rest should go to the History of Bratislava article. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 07:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just a note about issue with the coat-of-arms image. There is a discussion at the Commons about its deletion, because of the licensing and permission itself. Would you mind having a look there and maybe comment? Because we need to resolve this before potential FA review, and I'm unsure if this is acceptable copyright status (i.e. if fair use is better in this case). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, continuing my thread from above, it's been 6 weeks since the deletion request started to the coat-of-arms, and still no end is in sight. What do you think, will we just delete it and replace it with a fair use one or we will risk and submit candidature to FA or will we wait to see which way the cat jumps? I hope you know better about copyright and licences than me... MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Use it under fair use.--Svetovid 17:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hmm... Though I'd like to preserve Commons one, I see we don't have choice, because FA reviewers don't like copyright problems and we don't know what may happen, so I guess first choice is the only way to go. So what do you think: could be there this one, the current one or some other? (I'd like to use whichever for 2 articles, no more) But alas, I'm not skilled with those fair use images, not speaking about rationale. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I have a fair use image, I've sent this article to FA candidature and got some comments for improvement and I thought you may be able to help to address the objections. I've already tried to fix some of the points, but don't want to be alone in my efforts. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 10:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, not saying that you haven't made this effort to improve, however, deleting so would put me in the risk of de-striking resolved objection. You may wish to comment here and comment or contest to the reviewer's suggestion(s), saying why it shouldn't be done like this. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghostwriter

Hi, you deleted some material in the Ghostwriter article, stating that "(the deleted part was with no references, unencyclopedic and messed up page design)." The deleted material on ghostwriter's fees had Internet references to Ghostwriting companies. Regarding your claim that it is "unencyclopedic," I don't understand what you mean. The article is about ghostwriters, and I added information on how much money ghostwriters are paid per page, per article, or per book. This helps readers understand how ghostwriters make a living. Regarding the claim that it was "messed-up page design," if you don't like bullets, change them, don't erase the section. ThanksNazamo 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Some very unprofessionally looking anonymous websites offering services on the Internet are not a reliable source by any means. It didnt't even link to an original page but to a cached page instead. Either find some real sources - like an article whose author did some substantial research - or exact prices cannot be included in the article. Linking to a website offering services is considered ad spam anyway. Therefore, I've removed the first two points and left the third using writersunion.ca as a source (and have linked to the original website).--Svetovid 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Tagging Development Workshop Article

Hi, You tagged article Development Workshop as lacking references and advertisement like. I want to discuss it. First of all the article (just started today) had at least one reference and three its different web-sites. If it is not enough for the start, I will try to find more sources. Second, it belongs to the List of non-governmental organizations in Vietnam. As for neutrality question, could you please specify, the exact sentence, which contain any personal attitude or promotional phrase? What do you think should be written in the articles about humanitarian organizations? Critisizing? Or how should the neutrality be reached? Have a good time. Regards. Ans-mo 09:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the whole bulleted list following "Development Workshop France (DWF) is involved in the following activities in Vietnam:" reads like an advertisement/self promotion. It needs to be rewritten somewhat because at the moment it only states what the organization claims to do and not what it really does. It may be doing what it claims but you need to source that. The page that is supposed to confirm that - VUFO NGO Centre Vietnam - cannot be used because it does not neutrally report on what the organization does but merely copies its claims. You have a good one too.--Svetovid 09:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for advise. In general such kind of activities are not widely described in media. So, the related NGO directories seem to be reliable source. There are even less known organizations, which operate without wide publicity. Why should not they be described and inserted in the related lists? Ans-mo 09:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it cannot be stated as a fact. It should read as "the organization claims that..." or "Its mission statement is.." Charitable organizations are often dodgy and special care needs to be devoted to their claims. Organizations and enterprises will always state only positives about their activities, but an encyclopaedia should only report sourced facts.--Svetovid 10:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How to sign unsigned comments

I saw your comment at the Nipple sucking AfD. Go to Template:Unsigned and follow the instructions there. Let me know if you get stuck. Joie de Vivre ^T 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne

I know, I know - but ArbCom recently ruled:

• 6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

Dreadstar † 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, but this is a source-related issue.--Svetovid 18:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest discussing on the talk page instead of edit warring over it. The other editor apparently believes you are using it to push a certain POV, which is one of the core issue ArbCom was addressing, so it's not a clear case of it being a source-related issue. Dreadstar † 18:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"The other editor apparently believes you are using it to push a certain POV" - yes and its laughable.--Svetovid 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. I'm sure she does describe herself as a medium. But we don't use a thing just because it is sourced. Even if we did, it controverts the Arbitration decision. Please stop edit warring over it. We are not going to go against the ArbCom. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:National Public Radio

Do you work on template? I cant get my new template to work properly. Template:National Public Radio. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to have there? I'll help if I can.--Svetovid 22:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you put in the article number it will take you to the url, it is based on the template called "IMDB" and "Findagrave". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Interlinking generic dates is discouraged

Those were full dates, not just years, and WP:DATE says you normally link them. Why do you quote parts of the manual that don't even support what you say? Reinis^talk 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"# Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic."

How does linking to August 20 deepen readers' understanding of a particular TV documentary. Exactly, it does not.--Svetovid 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason full dates are linked is for autoformatting, the manual says that this is the norm, and most of the articles follow this. The quote you have above doesn't say full dates shouldn't be linked. Reinis^talk 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a bot removing interlinks from generic dates. Guess why. Or please go discuss it on the MoS board.--Svetovid 20:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you tell me. Also, which bot is that and is it delinking full dates too? Reinis^talk 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot (talk · contribs)--Svetovid 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see it removing any linked full dates. Reinis^talk 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

Labelling a content dispute as vandalism as you did in the edit comment of this edit is considered a personal attack. Here is your canned warning:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. IPSOS (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the other editor is right. It is not correct to quote a clear slur from that reference. It is against WP:NPOV and adds nothing useful to the article. IPSOS (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You kidding, right? If someone says "Scientific method is not a recipe" (quoting it from a Wiki article out of context) he clearly is a vandal. Also, it's a quote from a reliable source and Wikipedia is not censored so it has nothing to do with WP:NPOV.--Svetovid 08:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. I see no vandalism to the article. To revert an edit which is not vandalism and call it vandalism is a personal attack. IPSOS (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your warning is a personal attack but I could care less about such a childish behaviour. Removing sourced facts is vandalism, period.--Svetovid 13:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A slur is not a "sourced fact". IPSOS (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."--Svetovid 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly pointless talking to you, you don't seem to listen. IPSOS (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Potala

Hi, can you please refer to my question at Talk:Castle? Thank you. Gantuya eng 13:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghostwriter article revert

Any reason why you reverted my contribution to the article on Ghostwriter? I had added very genuine facts about the rates of ghostwriters that are going on at present. I also added true facts about outsourced ghostwriting and the trend of slashing rates. i would like to get clarified why you decided to revert these facts.--Pinaki ghosh 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

God is not great

Hi - I concur with your edits to God is not great, very well done. --GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 21:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Too many people think that just because someone writes about a particular subject - especially in the form of critiques about popular culture - he or she and their opinions are automatically relevant and significant to be included, which is wrong. This critiques are almost exclusively used to push editors' POV.--Svetovid 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bourne Ultimatum

Why did you change the track listing from # to actual numbers? The # should render numbers in a list form. Also, why did you remove two reviews from the Critical reaction section? What was "wrong" with them? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1 - soundtrack - Since it was interrupted by info about the 10th track, the number would not follow.
2 - critiques - Why should those two critiques be chosen? Where is the relevance or importance of those two particular critiques shown? Nowhere currently.--Svetovid 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the track listing could have been re-structured to mention that John Powell composed all but the last song, which was composed and performed by Moby. Also, when you ask about the relevance/importance, in what sense do you mean? The voices that are speaking, or the context of their words? Just trying to understand what your criteria would be. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There need to be some evidence that those particular critiques are important enough to be cited.--Svetovid 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What would be some ways to determine their importance? Google test, having a wiki-article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. If those critiques were mentioned/used by other respectable sources (but not by the film creators for marketing purposes), that should make them notable.--Svetovid 17:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How about reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes? There is a subsection of reviews that come from mainstream news outlets that must meet certain criteria to be listed. It's not that commonplace for reviews to be quoted by yet another independent party. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes lists tens of reviews, often from disputable sources. Do you want to use all of them in the Wikipedia article? Obviously no, so there must be more sources showing that the particular critiques' are important/notable.--Svetovid 15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You say that pretty broadly. Have you ever looked at the Cream of the Crop reviews under a film? These are focused on reviews from mainstream news outlets. Here's the page for The Bourne Ultimatum. These are far more credible reviews than the general collection of reviews -- why could a person cite one of these in a Wikipedia article? Can you provide an example of what would be an appropriate review of a film, and why? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mafia 2

Why are you erasing Mafia 2 article ? Maybe you should check GTA IV article on wikipedia and see how many details are there. Don't pretend you're only one here who knows Wikipedia rules. Evertything I wrote was correct and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobster 1930 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not erasing "Mafia 2 article" but only certain parts that are original research and/or not encyclopaedic. Second, refrain from personal attacks; I find them pointless.--Svetovid 22:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Svetovid. May i know why you have readded this line again:- DirectX 10 or OpenGL compatibility is still unknown. I don't think it is necessary for it to be added again. --SkyWalker 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

DX10 and OpenGL (added by another user) are significant features interesting for a lot of readers.--Svetovid 20:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here in this diffs it show you have added. Can you tell me in what way it is interesting?. --SkyWalker 21:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I added DX10; someone else added OpenGL. It's interesting because it interests (a lot of) people. I cannot be any more clearer than that ;)--Svetovid 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Sunset

Why do you persistently keep removing photos from the gallery of sunset when the sole purpose of a gallery is to archive notable media that back up the subject by which the article is originally written for. You added a note requesting that photos only be added if they benefit the article. Well, what exactly do you mean by this? I'd understand this statement if people were adding photos that do not depict a sunset but photos added that clearly show different sunsets which may interest readers of the article in my opinion are very appropriate. Ryan(^talk/_contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanLupin (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Generic photographs of sunsets add nothing to the article, especially when they are of low technical standard. For such images, we have Wikimedia Commons. The article links to it already.
If people want to improve the article, they should focus on text content.--Svetovid 17:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Changed per suggestion"

What do you mean by that?--Patrick 23:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning 9/9/07

While I accept this warning and understand why it was issued to me I am still at a loss as to why my recent edits to the page "sunset" were repeatedly deleted. I believe that these edits were added to the benefit of the said article and they by no means were "vandalising" the article. I believe the person responsible for constantly deleting my edits without honest justification is the one who is taking real "ownership" of this article. I hope this will prove to you that my intent in editing articles is solely for the benefit of wikipedia and I would much appreciate an explanation in relation to this matter. Thank You. TerritorialWaters 19:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

Ask yourself a question: What does a random photo of sunset of low technical quality add to the article already full of high-quality photos of different sunsets with a link to Wikimedia Commons?
The warning was for the note saying that you will ignore everybody and do what you want.--Svetovid 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your updates to Darwin's Angel

I'm referring to your modification of the section on media responses. Thank you. Someone had to do it. Knowing our luck it will start an edit war, the very thing it was meant to stop, but I'm by you 100% on it. I;ve yet to see if anyone has picked up on it on the talk page. They haven't on the AfD discussion, which has basically been at a standstill for a day. 85.92.173.186 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Poloniny.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Poloniny.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh?

This was either a mistake or pretty rude. --Dweller 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Or original research. If it starts with "may or may not", you know it should not be there unless this supposition is substantially covered by reliable sources.--Svetovid 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's untrue. Some things in this world are uncertain, and are the subject of disagreement. The hallmark of OR is unsourced material, not the way it's been worded. Wording can always be improved, if someone is unhappy with it, after all, this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And if you're unhappy with something, you can discuss it with the other editor. Reverting a good faith editor using popups without discussion is just rude. --Dweller 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) PS Higher up this page, you wrote "Removing sourced facts is vandalism, period.--Svetovid 13:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)".

Read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. "May or may not" coming from a blog is not a sourced fact at all. And for the last time - you inserted original research and trivial info without any explanation whatsoever.--Svetovid 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

ATI Technologies

You recently readded a fair-use image to ATI Technologies without adding a detailed fair-use rationale to the image description page. A fair-use rationale specific to each individual article is required for any fair-use image. I have removed the image again. Thanks. --Yamla 14:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Can't remember that. Could you point me to the picture?--Svetovid 19

45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious ...

Why revert all the copyediting? [1] Neil ム 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job!

Hello, I noticed your articles about Slovak national parks etc. I think you make a good job. Aren't you thinking about contributing to Slovak Wikipedia too? --Wizzard 11:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Sunset

I see you have a particularly biased approach regarding the gallery section seeing as you own an image within the gallery. Please let me direct you WP:NPOV and again WP:NOT and WP:IG. There is currently a discussion about images and a gallery in the articles talk page. Why not discuss changes before seeing it upon yourself to revert edits and in doing so violoating wikipedia's Ownership of articles policy Angel (^T•C) 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironic that you point me to articles I point other who inserted images of random sunsets there. Saying that that's my image is beyond laughable though, because I only uploaded it and it's not mine by any merit.--Svetovid 22:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I too also find it incredibly ironic that you claim to have protected the article from 'image overpopulation' yet you seem to be taking it very personally when a fellow wikipedian carries out the exact same form of 'protection.' I don't want this to turn into an edit war. If you feel the gallery should exist. Why not express you opinions on the articles talk page and let the general consensus come to a decision instead of just seeing it upon yourself to revert perfectly legit changes? Angel (^T•C) 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eurasian Lynx

Hello, Svetovid!

I've noticed that you have grouped the Slovenian, Croatian and Bosnian populations of the Eurasian Lynx into the Dinaric Alps subcategory. This is only partially correct, since the lynx is also present in the following Slovenian mountain ranges: The Julian Alps, the Karawanken and the Kamnik Alps. (In other words, official Slovenian lynx statistics include these areas.) Of course, these ranges are parts of the Alps proper, not the Dinaric Alps.

As a temporary solution, I added a mention of the Julian Alps next to the Dinaric Alps, but the problem remains with the other two ranges -- adding them would probably be too confusing. Since you have been involved with this article and its categories, I would like to ask you to propose a solution. Should only the names of the three countries be mentioned in the subcategory heading, instead of mountain ranges? Thanks. --WorldWide Update 12:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You can exclude Slovenia completely from Dinaric Alps and mention it on its own.--Svetovid 15:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds logical and I have considered doing that. However, there are two potential problems: 1.) the Dinaric Alps do extend into parts of southern Slovenia, and 2.) it's diffucult to determine what should stay in the Dinaric Alps category and what should be moved into the new Slovenia category. Anyway, thanks for your input. I'll think about it and double-check the relevant numbers, dates, etc. for Slovenia. Of course, if you have any specific ideas, feel free to reorganize the categories yourself. --WorldWide Update 16:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.You are clearly reverting these changes now for the sake of it. Why not actually read WP:GALLERY and WP:IG? Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of photographs or media files. Wikipedia strongly discourages Galleries and seeing as the one on sunset adds absolutely nothing to the article. There is no reason to have it included. There is already a sunset page on the wikipedia commons to store images. You are clearly biased as you uploaded one of the images to the gallery and obviously want it shown. Angel ^T 17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you were kidding. And you can stop with personal attacks; I don't mind them so it's a pointless strategy from you.--Svetovid 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in personal takes at all. I was merely warning you not to assume ownership of articles which you were doing in reverting perfectly legit edits without joining in the discussion on the articles talk page Angel ^T 05:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Another personal attack with lies. Are you done now?
You first made a significant change to an article, pointing to a refused proposal (Wikipedia:Galleries) and misinterpreting an official policy (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), saying that: "Wikiepdia [sic] discourages the use of galleries.", while in fact it says nothing about galleries and only says "Wikipedia is not...Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles," which obviously does not apply to the gallery you removed since it had text description with each unique image. After such a blatant misinterpretation and distortion of facts, I could do nothing else but revert the edit, since your post on the talk page of the article only stated the same misinterpretations. You also came to my talk page and instead of discussing possible changes or inviting me to participate on the talk page, you accused me of NPOV with no evidence to back it up.
As of today, you didn't add a single positive edit to the article, nor could you explain how to substitute the removed unique pictures with text.
If you are not interested in enriching Wikipedia with information that's fine by me. I also welcome if you are only interested in improving current articles by enforcing policies and guidelines, but learn those guidelines and policies first and comment on the content and don't attack editors with made-up accusations.--Svetovid 11:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins "controversy" section

Hi Svetovid - As I'm sure you realise, I am very firmly "on the same side" as you in this so-called debate. But I don't think adding comments as you did here is very helpful. All you will do is antagonise RucasHost. I urge you to assume good faith and stick to the merits or otherwise of the proposed addition to the article. Thanks for listening! Snalwibma 11:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is assuming good faith and there is dealing with people like him, which I think is best passed with humour on the Internet. Just look at his user page.--Svetovid 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK ... hmmm ... I see what you mean. But I still believe in treating someone like a reasonable human being, regardless of evidence to the contrary! Surely that's the way to win friends and influence people - not just RucasHost but others who may be watching the discussion. Snalwibma 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was no disrespect. Actually, my point was very accurate and on point, even though it was off-topic, just like the whole debate.--Svetovid 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Live Earth

Why do you think that CounterPunch, Zee News and Pajamas Media are "bloggers"? Melsaran (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The concrete two writers can hardly be described as notable journalists. Nevertheless, even if it was true, one journalist coining a name and another using it after five months are not notable to mention. The mocking name was not widely adopted by critics as the article suggested and can be labelled as Wikipedia:Recentism. Furthermore, one of the links is dead and was just a copy of one of the two other articles anyway.--Svetovid 13:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You were right all along it seems...

Hi, I must confess you were right about the NPOV tag. I think there has been a kind of feedback loop, I have seen our article so much that I have assumed the criticism has itself been that negative. I mean some atheist reviewers have basically said "Excellent book, well I don't agree with that, but thank you Dawkins for speaking up!" And we have quoted every single thing they don't agree on: a person writes 6-7 paragraphs of praise and one negative paragraph, and the entire negative paragraph is somehow in our article??? God really is omnipotent, isn't he?? --Merzul 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing?

I was sent a message for vandalizing (using my IP). I don't use a shared computer or anything, and I haven't edited any articles as of yet. Can you send me a link to what I've supposedly vandalized? And is there any way that people can be using my IP for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.141.217 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

You know, I don't appreciate my edits being called vandalism, especially when they aren't vandalism. It may be verifiable, but it's still wrong and I don't know about you, but I would prefer not to intentionally have inaccurate information on articles. Besides, the song also counts as a source and it quite obviously was meant to be in Day of the Jackanapes as it includes the lyrics "I can't wait to kill Krusty today, Bart takes the wrap while I get away" and also says something about explosives. I'm not suggesting listing the episode on the page, I just think that Simpsons Tall Tales should be removed. I've tried to take this to the article talk page (several times) but you seem content to edit war. What is so wrong about listing the song without an episode, and why does wanting to do that make me a vandal? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You try to go against policies. If you don't like certain policies, address them and do not try to make a point by removing sourced content. Of, course, I will revert an edit based on your original research (as proven in this very comment) when I have the official source available.--Svetovid (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Simpsons: Testify. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Ctjf83 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins

With the greatest of respect Mr (or Mrs?) Svetovid, I was simply picking up on the fact that Prof. Dawkins beliefs about Wikipedia had not been discussed in the article. Why do you slander me such with accusations of lying and POV pushing? --Nicholas (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First, i asked and did not accuse. Second, I never said anything about you and POV pushing. Someone beliefs about Wikipedia are not specifically important in their biographies just because it;s about Wikipedia.--Svetovid (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain making sarcastic jibes on the Richard Dawkins talk page. Why don't you try making useful contributions toward the discussion instead?--Nicholas (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So you were serious? OK then.--Svetovid (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: File:Terry Pratchett at the Carpet People launch party.jpg

It's the responsibility of the person tagging the image for deletion to notify the uploader (and in this case, it was tagged by an anonymous user, so there's no opportunity to instruct them). The concern was that the image was replaceable, which violates criterion 1 of the non-free content policy. Since the image was being used only to depict the appearance of a living person, it was a straightforward deletion. Please get back to me on my talk page if you have any more concerns. east.718 at 00:16, November 19, 2007

Journey Page

Hi Svetoid--

Good edits, overall.

I've changed the sub-headings in an attempt to address the "Magazine" tag you left on the page (and removed the tag). Please let me know what you think, and if I'm heading in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Golland (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I need your help! Can you please make a few changes to the tone so I can get a better sense of how you'd like me and the other editors of the page to proceed? Dave Golland (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I rewrote the 'Lead Singer Replaced Again, 2006-Present' section. The best way to improve writing is to look out for deadwood phrases (wordiness) and weasel words. Content introduced by words indicating that it is based on rumors is probably not worth keeping.
Content with no sources/references, especially if it makes bold claims, should be rewritten or removed.
Example from the article: "With the mediocre sales of the album Next, the band was pressured by the studio to change direction and find a lead singer who could also, unlike the keyboard-bound Gregg Rolie, serve as a frontman."
The sentence says that the sales of the album were mediocre, but there is no source. It also says that the band was pressured, again without a source. Lack of sources is a general problem of the article.--Svetovid (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like I and the other editors still have our work cut out for us. It may be awhile, but I'll see to it that the whole thing is overhauled for style. I'll ask you before I remove the magazine tag again.Dave Golland 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've rewritten the entire article. Please take a look and remove the tag if you feel it's appropriate to do so; if not, please let me know what else I need to do. Thanks!Dave Golland (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

pollination image

Hi Svetovid - I think the truck image has a lot of value in pollination - it shows the industrial aspects of pollination, which none of the other images do. Maybe the image of the green berry should be replaced with it. de Bivort 15:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings Online

Svetovid, Your edits of "critical reception" vs. "reception" were spot on, thank you for that. I do, however have a question, if you could clarify the reasoning for the deletion of the Wazap ratings (and only their ratings) from the Lord of the Rings Online page, I would appreciate it. I added several other review sources (1UP and others being more opinionated and subjective) and other, more neutral ratings aggregators. In the interest of full disclosure, I do work for Wazap, but I post not as a representative of wazap but as a gamer on my own, personal time. So I try to maintain neutrality. My goal is not to promote wazap but provide more neutral aggregators of game ranking information. I believe the information is relevant, contextual and informative. However, if you believe that I've inadvertantly violated the conflict of intrest and neutral PoV, I respect your critique and look forward to resolving the deletion. JP Sherman (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Compliment

[2] Squash Racket (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Nerd

Let's start a conversation in the discussion section of the article concerning the ScrewAttack logo. I will try to get some input from G1s. Have a great day. - DevinCook (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK-NAB

Hi, I am not sure if this edit is correct [3]. I think that airport was called Ivanka in those times. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, officially. But in English and in Slovak too it's been called Bratislava Airport, and as such it's acceptable to avoid confusion. Maybe Ivanka should be added into parentheses to give full info?--Svetovid (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I added Bratislava-Ivanka. Without that it might be a little bit confusing for the reader as there might be more airports in the Bratislava (even sport ones). ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

TANSTAAFL looks like a real page now!

Thanks for the clean up of the page. I've always thought that this should be a real article, but was surprised to see so many different views of what it meant, and so little secondary documentation.

1 minor request for advise. The image to the right

was included by another user, and then soon deleted by a third user. I liked the image so much I put it on my user page. It needs a caption, but do you think it fits with the article?

Smallbones (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation

Hi - I know both can be used, but I think it does matter in which context! See American_and_British_English_differences#Punctuation for details about why I changed the quotation mark location. In this case, since the quotations were not speech but taken from text, I judged that the right punctuation was with the full stop outside the quotes. Stephenb (Talk) 08:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Discovery-logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Discovery-logo.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) 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done--Svetovid (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Slovakia

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.

(I don't know if you want, but if you'd be interested... and when you're adding project templates, I think it's reasonable to invite you) MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

From Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GND poster smaller.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GND poster smaller.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) 02:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done--Svetovid (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Blimp

Hi I would be nice for you not to delete my work! The amount of fundraising is refrenced with no bias simply stating a FACK. AS well as the Ron Paul boston tea party renactmen. Keep your POV off of the page thanks...--Duchamps comb (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I only removed a statement that belongs to a promotional poster and not an encyclopaedia. My edit was later confirmed by another editor.
Your contributions show that you write only about Ron Paul, so it's funny that you have the nerve to accuse others of pushing their POV.--Svetovid (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanking Hedvig Malina

If you have issues discuss them on the talk page. Blanking the whole article and turning it into a redirect is not the way to go. Discussion is not optional when dealing with controversial topics as mandated by wikipedia policy. Hobartimus (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate title should be changed. There is no need to discuss that, especially with a troll like you.--Svetovid (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You committed multiple personal attacks now, what's your problem really? We should be able to discuss this without this many problems, just use the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I only called you troll and only once and that is an accurate definition, not a personal attack.--Svetovid (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your disruption violated a bunch of policies so far, I suggest you stop and remain civil. Just so you are surely informed, you cannot copy the work of others without giving credit to the author(s), in this case the Hedvig article, to which you contributed nothing. Hobartimus (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

She is Hungarian, if she must have official documents, that's another issue. But she uses her Hungarian name, even English language sources refer to her by that name. You can't delete the article, references are numerous. Squash Racket (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think Hobartimus wouldn't know about your deletion proposal? He already moved the article back to the Hungarian name. And please don't judge and delete others' comments. Even banned users' comments have not been deleted. Squash Racket (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

She is Slovak. It seems you don't know the difference between nationality and ethnicity. The so called English sources are in fact Hungarian ones writing in English (e.g.:Magyar Nemzet, Budapest and Hungarian News Agency).
I didn't delete the article; I redirected it to the correct version.
"And please don't judge and delete others' comments." - See and read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others's comments before inaccurately advising others.--Svetovid (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I read it. Which part of it applies to Hobartimus' comment? All members of the Hungarian minority go by Slovak names in the documents, right? Isn't that a sign of Slovakization? I mean she was beaten for being Hungarian, so now she will go by the Slovak version of her name on the English Wiki? Squash Racket (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's off topic, and I am not interested in debating your personal opinions and feelings.--Svetovid (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of the talk page guideline applies to Hobartimus' comment? You asked me to read that, why is that off topic? Squash Racket (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"not relevant to improving the article"--Svetovid (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Deleting material not relevant to improving the article"? You always obey that rule when it comes to Slovak users? When Tankred talks about setting new borders, when MarkBa complains about other nations' users engaging themselves in Slovak topics? If we go by that, really half of the talk pages could be removed. At least Hobartimus talked about something related to the topic of the article. Squash Racket (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith fake reports on 3RR board

All Slovak users have a tendency for fake reports[4]? You kindly waited till I go to sleep? You are so into Wikipedia policies, have you read Wikipedia: Assume good faith? You knew I hadn't been even close to breaking the rule, but you repeatedly deleted referenced material from a FA without concensus. Squash Racket (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

3 personal attack in 1 comment. Work on it. I could assume could faith but it would mean you did all those inaccurate and provocative edits unintentionally, which would make you...--Svetovid (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak attempt to get someone blocked for no reason and weak answer afterwards. That's all. Squash Racket (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD full of personal attacks

I would kindly ask you to rewrite the AfD in an NPOV, calm, acceptable way or we will discuss your behavior first. Please remove all humiliating and degrading comments on me and Hobartimus. Squash Racket (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are all editors' or Wikipedia's speaker now?--Svetovid (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)