User talk:Bazonka/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tagging the Treasures[edit]

Hi Dan and Mark Just wanted to say a big Thank You for the incite you have given us in using Wiki. I have had excellent feedback from the attendees and you have certainly given us food for thought on the benefits of using Wiki as an invaluable tool. It was refreshing to see the passion of the real people behind the anonymous face of Wiki and to learn that Wiki has been striving to be taken seriously. Many Thanks Jacqueline LSAAC Tagger1 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

any thoughts?[edit]

[1] means if we get that there, the whole schmozzle starts over again where australian authorities specifically say they have the southern ocean on their southern side, and the inner workings of the australian internal waters become part of an ocean 2000 km to the west. grrrr. JarrahTree 00:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ahhh I found an answer, [2] a good answer I say JarrahTree 13:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oriya->Odia[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriya_language#Requested_move_17_June_2015. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on this. Bazonka (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medworxx[edit]

I wrote an article about this software company this week. It was speedily deleted - while I was asleep - on the basis that the article was promotional. I never had an opportunity to dispute this. Could you tell me how I might get it reinstated?Rathfelder (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need an administrator to look at the deleted article and potentially bring it back from the dead. You should post a comment on WP:ANI to raise it with them. Bazonka (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition of Kosovo[edit]

Why the revert? Against manual of style. --Arianit (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, my bad, although slightly akward. --Arianit (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool on Sunday[edit]

Hi Bazonka. I'm probably not going to be able to make the wikimeet in Liverpool on Sunday, as I'm helping someone move house. I may be able to turn up later in the afternoon, though, depending on how long moving things takes. However, it looks like it's just you and me signed up at the moment, so perhaps it would be worth rescheduling it for some time later in the summer? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Mike. I was thinking of postponing anyway. I'll keep the page unchanged for a couple of days just in case anyone else signs up, but I doubt it. Bazonka (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst[edit]

Many thanks again for your most helpful contribution and excellent training skills today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone the Manchester Meetup?[edit]

You may want to comment at meta:Talk:Meetup/Manchester/30#Postponement. Yaris678 (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Yaris678:, I've been away so not able to look at this properly until today, and it's too late to do anything about it now. Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation template[edit]

I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't know who else to ask. The Citation template, which I use all the time, appears to have been changed, radically. I'm not sure if its broken, but I can't get it to work and I can't find any guidance. Do you know what's happened?Rathfelder (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happily it has been restored to normality!Rathfelder (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was away so I wasn't able to look into this. Glad it's sorted now though. Bazonka (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification list for meetups[edit]

Hi Bazonka,

I've just noticed the list of people at meta:Meetup/Manchester. It says "If you want a message leaving on your talk page when the date of a future wikimeet in the North of England is set, then please leave your username below."

My name is on the list but I don't think I've ever had such a notification. Does this mean the messages don't go out? Or does it mean that I always sign up to quick?

If it is the former, maybe we should do something with User:MediaWiki message delivery.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't send messages out. That list is very out of date, and on the odd occasion when I have contacted everyone on it, it's made no difference. I think we need to start from scratch, and the message delivery tool may well be part of the solution. I'll have a think about it. Bazonka (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. What do you think the best approach would be? We could use a message that said something like this.
Hi there! Do you know that there will be meetups in Liverpool on the 27th of September and in Manchester on the 25th of October?

We have sent you this message because you signed up at meta:Meetup/Manchester. If you would rather not receive such messages on future, please remove your name from the list.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a message around back in March, which seemed to result in an increase in attendance at the following wikimeets, and a number of people added their names to the Manchester notification list as a result. See e.g. [3] - feel free to reuse that language if you want. I haven't sent out notices since then as I've gotten sidetracked with trying to find a better solution through User:Mike Peel/Wikimeet survey... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have created a draft message at User:Yaris678/Meetup message and a list of people to send to at User:Yaris678/Meetup list. Any comments before I press go on User:MediaWiki message delivery? Yaris678 (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I started to send emails to a few people yesterday, manually using the "Email this user" link. I only got as far as Mikołka before the spambot kicked in and I was told to wait before sending more. So there's no point in mailing anyone before Gurbir2704. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have sent the message to everyone after Mikołka on the list (plus me and Mike, just to check it was working). Yaris678 (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey![edit]

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR[edit]

Hi! I see that you are going round changing "licenced" to "licensed". Have you read WP:ENGVAR recently, and in particular MOS:RETAIN? "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." OK, File:Georg Ehrlich.jpg is not an article; but what exactly is your defence for changing the spelling there? I suggest you self-revert all of those edits, which are (a) pointless and (b) (to some of us at least) plain wrong. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR. In British English, "licence" is the noun spelling and "license" (and hence "licensed") is the verb spelling. In American English "license" is used for both the noun and the verb. "Licenced" is ALWAYS wrong. Bazonka (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1972 edition, page 758: "Licence, in U.S. license .. n. a being allowed; leave …. v.t. license, to grant licence … also licence. " Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so in some rare, archaic and/or non-standard cases "licence" may be used as a verb, but this is generally considered incorrect and (unless part of a quotation) shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with the changes, licenced is an acceptable and often used form of the verb in British English but not U.S. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're just wrong then. It is not "often used" at all, except in error. Bazonka (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An Oxford English Dictionary in front of me says otherwise. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nimbus227: I am not disputing that "licence" is a valid verb form, but that it is "often used". As a verb, this is a highly uncommon spelling. My own Oxford consice and (much larger) Reader's Digest dictionaries do not even mention this spelling as a verb. Here are some examples of official UK uses of "license" as a verb: DVLA, TV licensing, Bar Council. There are, of course, countless more. Wikipedia should not use rare or obsolete spellings where perfectly good alternatives exist (see MOS:S). My own personal view is that the licence/license distinction in British English is much better than the American license/license - their language is not as nuanced or as rich as ours; your preference for licence/licence does not have this distinction either. Bazonka (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you have 'corrected' several hundred instances of the word so far on Wikipedia alone would indicate that it is used more often than you would have us believe. I'm done here and nearly done with the project due to these kind of crusades. Have fun. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crusades? Wow. I'm just changing archaic spellings to standard English, as per MOS:S. Bazonka (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And there we have it: the real reason why people should not go round changing microscopic and totally insignificant details (especially when those people have got their facts wrong from the start, of course). Bazonka, if you think that the ordinary English word "licenced" should not be used in Wikipedia, go ahead and obtain consensus. Once you've done so, you can bugger up other people's spelling to your heart's content, just like the person/people/Vogons who won't allow a hyphen in a compound adjective such as "wholly-owned". Until then, you are plain wrong, and should undo the edits where you incorrectly changed that word. For heaven's sake, haven't you got anything better to do? Want to try your hand at copyright clean-up (it's a lot more interesting than fiddling with spelling)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Licenced" is absolutely not an "ordinary English word". I have given three (out of many) examples of reliable and official British uses of "license" (verb use) above. I challenge you, @Justlettersandnumbers:, to find similar examples of "licence" as a verb. You won't be able to. It's not a standard word. Sorry, but you're the one who's got their facts wrong. Bazonka (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: Here's a few more official and reliable examples. CRT, EA, NHS, PRS. Come on, put your money where your mouth is. Show me uses of "licenced"/"licencing", and we'll see who's "plain wrong". PS I work in licensing, so I do actually know what I'm talking about. Bazonka (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: Here are a few more just for fun. Met Police, TNA, Gangmasters Licensing Authority, UK legislation, Oxford university. The latter example is of course the home of the dictionary beloved by advocates of BrE (myself included). I utterly challenge your assertion that I've "got [my] facts wrong from the start". Bazonka (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Licence/license is not a new thing. Fowler and Fowler (1926). The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford at Clarendon Press. p. 469. licence (noun) a permit: license (verb) to allow an action: It's the same as practice and practise and has always been so in my experience. A lot of people don't realise that license is correct as a verb and mistakenly think it's an Americanism. Eagleash (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will those people complaining of ENGVAR please try reading a dictionary before commenting. As a verb, license is correct for both. Licence is English, but only as a noun.
"Licence built" is still a problem, as no-one can agree if that's building under licence (noun) or being licensed to build (verb). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andy. I guess in the case of "licence built" the best thing to do would be to let the current spelling stand (unless it's an AmE article). Bazonka (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The online OED has as its headword for the verb entry "license | licence, v." indicating that it considers both spellings to have equal status. The OED gives the history of various forms of a word indicating when they were first recorded and when they became obsolete. Both forms are shown as still being current with the licence form being much the older. Google books "licenced" shows that there is very widespread usage of licenced in published works, so to claim that it is rare is somewhat of an overstatement. This campaign is pedantry at its worst, trying to define the language by regulation. A good dictionary will never do that, they report the language as it is actually used, they do not try to dictate usage. SpinningSpark 11:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Your Google Books search for "licenced" brings back only 161,000 results (as opposed to 2,120,000 for "licensed") and I suspect that a lot of these are due to spelling ignorance rather than a deliberate choice, and some are actually spelt "licensed" when you look at them (e.g. [4], "Licenced Premices"! but really it's called "Licensed Premises".)
In any case our Manual of Style explicitly mandates the use of "license" as a verb in all forms of English, so that should really put an end to this silly debate. But what I find most strange is that the file where you objected to my change citing WP:ENGVAR (File:Large antenna loading coil.jpg) should be written in AmE anyway, so there's double the reason for using the S spelling. Bazonka (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...only 161,000 results" SpinningSpark 12:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...many of which are invalid when you actually look at them. Bazonka (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a student of correct English, I am sure you realise that many implies more than one. Have you actually managed to find more than one? I couldn't in the first two pages of results (except for a repeat of the same book). SpinningSpark 12:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps I overstated that a bit, but I think that the gist of what I said still stands. [5], should be AmE so definitely wrong by anyone's standards. [6], obvious typo when you Google the organisation name. [7], as mentioned above, actually spelt "licensed" when you look at it. A lot of the others are typewritten documents (not proper books) or are very old. As I said above, I suspect the vast majority of the others are due to ignorance of the spelling. Bazonka (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The OED is famously descriptive; we can't conclude that it regards all spellings provided as having "equal status". For guidance, I'd look to Fowler's Modern English Usage.
  • The first edition (1926) is mild: "licence, -se. The first is better for the noun, the second for the verb. Compare, for this convenient distinction, advice, -se, device, -se, practice, -se, prophecy, sy, in all of which the c marks the noun."
  • The second edition (1965) is slightly stronger: "licence, -se. The first is right for the noun, the second for the verb. Compare, for this convenient distinction, advice, -se, device, -se, practice, -se, prophecy, sy, in all of which the c marks the noun. (IN U.S. license and practice are preferred for both.)"
  • The third (1996) and fourth (2015) editions are sterner: "licence, -se. In BrE the first is the only spelling for the noun (AmE license), while the second is the normal form for the verb in both countries. Thus, in BrE, motor vehicle licence, poetic licence; to license one's car, licensing hours. Hence also licensed premises, licensed restaurants (implying that they have a licence to serve alcoholic liquor) and (now a rather old-fashioned word) licensed victuallers. Occasionally one encounters licenced instead of licensed in such circumstances (rationalized, it is alleged, as being formed from the noun rather than from the verb), but this is a case of special pleading." NebY (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was too quick to assume the OED wouldn't provide guidance. The first edition's L-M (completed by about 1923) has a long note, reading in part "In the case of the vb., on the other hand, although the spelling licence is etymologically unobjectionable, license is supported by the analogy of the rule universally adopted in the similar pairs .... Johnson and Todd give only the form license both for the sb. and the vb., but the spelling of their quots. conforms, with one exception, to the rule above referred to, which is recognized by Smart ((1836), and seems to represent the now prevailing usage. Recent Dicts., however, almost universally have license both for sb. and vb., either without alternative or in the first place." NebY (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Bazonka and spelling changes. Thank you. SpinningSpark 11:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it has been emphatically closed in my favour, so I think that puts this discussion to bed. Bazonka (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And reopened again, sigh... Meanwhile, I am still waiting for User:Justlettersandnumbers to respond to my challenge to find official and reliable sources using the C spelling, to match the S ones that I quoted above. If anyone else would like to provide some, I'll be astonished. Bazonka (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this is all tiddlywinks, why not another lengthy painful drawn out session as to whether the southern ocean exists (or not)... JarrahTree 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liga II[edit]

I see you edited Liga II seasons, maybe you can create some more seasons in Liga II, I will give you the references. Thank you!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexiulian25: I only fixed a spelling error. I have no interest in the subject matter, so I do not want to create new articles. Why don't you do it yourself? Bazonka (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lot, I will do it, but today all day I edited in Welsh football, it was disaster there, the first division before 1992 ! Welsh Football League this was in South, what league was played in North of Wales before 1992?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English variants[edit]

Hi Bazonka, re: these edits [8][9] please note that Danger Mouse is a British series, so we should be using British English. I manually undid your edit yesterday where you changed "licence" to "license", and I also added a {{Use British English}} template to the top of the article. I'd appreciate it if you'd please keep an eye out for this. I'm concerned because I see hundreds of swaps like this in your recent edit history. On the other hand, if I'm wrong that "licence" is a valid word, please tell me, but this suggests that it is valid. (Tangentially, the ability to discriminate between different spelling lists seems like a feature AWB should be equipped with if it's not already equipped to do so...I may have to request that feature.) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just saw your edit summary. I hath been educated! Sorry! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! (Sorry for the edit war earlier. Because you'd done a soft revert I hadn't received a revert notification, so I changed the article again without realising that I'd already edited it.) Bazonka (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the mistake was mine. :) I'm just glad I wasn't an arrogant dick about it. Whew! Came thaaat close. (not true) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your editing on licensing/licencing has been confrontational and you have made no real effort to discuss or seek consensus. WP:STRONGNAT mandates use of national varieties of English. Here are some examples of licencing being used by official bodies and media:

Newcastle City Council, Australia

Eyewitness news, South Africa

I only spent a few minutes doing this for a few specific countries. Pinging User:Spinningspark, User:Nyttend, User:Justlettersandnumbers. Bazonka, your comments at the ANI were supremely arrogant "like it or not, I've done it" and "the discussion is redundant" AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't going to respond to a childish schoolyard challenge, but since someone else has given some examples, here are two thousand seven hundred and seventeen occurrences of "licencing" in reliable sources on Highbeam. And yes, there's a serious WP:IDHT attitude problem here too. Anyone can make a mistake; but when one is pointed out, "fuck you, I've finished" is not an appropriate response. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And another one thousand and eighty-eight on JSTOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
five thousand two hundred and thirty-six on Newspapers.com. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got time to respond properly to this now, but just the first ones I clicked on in the Highbeam link are obvious spelling mistakes, e.g. [10] which refers to the "MPEG-4 Audio Licencing Committee". However, the committee doesn't spell its own name like that. I'll agree that its a very common typo. (And I apologise if you thought I was saying "fuck you", although of course I never used those words.) Bazonka (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Nine thousand or so typos? In printed sources from all over the world? Over a thousand typos in the sort of source that JSTOR carries? And every typo the same typo? You have it back-to-front. The verb is correctly spelt "licence" in my kind of English. I freely admit that that usage, like so many others, is changing under the relentless pressure of Webster-based spelling. I also accept that you may have thought that MOS:S was some sort of Bible. Neither of those excuses your attitude. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Birmingham Mail and Yorkshire Evening Post articles spell it as both "licencing" and "licensing". Not exactly trustworthy sources then. I haven't really looked at many more, but so far it's just confirming my suspicion that these are all typos rather than conscious decisions to use that spelling variant. Bazonka (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've run quick checks on three of the sites you mention, chosen from different countries but otherwise at random.
These results seem so overwhelming that it hardly seems worth continuing, but you might like to try similar comparative searches on the other sites you mention.
I should correct one detail in my posting above. The Leisureness-Lief section of the OED was "ready for publication" in March 1902. NebY (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com: licencing 5,236, licensing 535,478.
JSTOR: licencing 1,088, licensing 96,768. NebY (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)What a load of nonsense to suggest that many typos have occurred unnoticed. What is clear is that licencing is still used, especially interchangeably. It is not as black and white as you think. OED says "British: also licence" for the verb. Do you think a typo was made when naming the Tamil Nadu Licencing Authority? AusLondonder (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course American spelling is being forced by users such as yourself (in violation of WP:STRONGNAT) which is why American spellings are seen more in some searches. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that there are indeed typos on the Tamil Nadu website and that the correct name of the board uses "licensing". The website template uses "Licencing" on the header of each page, but the text is "Licensing", e.g. "The Tamilnadu "Electrical Licensing Board" is a body constituted by the Government of Tamilnadu under rule 45 of Indian Electrcitiy Rules 1956, for the issue of competency certificates and Licenses to the contractors. The Chief Electrical Inspector to Government is the President of the Licensing Board. The head office is located in the Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. This Electrical Licensing Board has no Branches." The Indian Electricity Rules 1956 use licence for the noun, but licensee and licensed. NebY (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've quoted Fowler already and the Telegraph's style guide above, but of course other UK style guides are available. The BBC one has "Licence/license - The noun is licence with a ‘c’ (eg: driving licence); the verb has an ‘s’ (eg: licensed to kill)." The Guardian/Observer has "licence noun; license verb; you might enjoy your drinks in a licensed premises or take them home from an off-licence". Sadly, the Economist one is silent on the matter and the Times one doesn't seem to be available online, while the FT Lexicon confuses everything by listing both licence and license as nouns, along with licensee and licensor. The Daily Mail doesn't publish a style guide but Margaret Ashworth does; she was a sub-editor at the Mail for 39 years, wrote a style guide for them[11] and then published a revised version of it: "licence/license: licence is the noun, license is the verb. So: ‘He has a driving licence’, and ‘He is licensed to sell beer’ (thus ‘licensee’)." I haven't looked for style guides for the Independent, Sun, Mirror, Express or Star - perhaps you could? NebY (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

locator.svg file[edit]

Respected Bazonka! Please help to create a File: Uzbekistan Brazil Locator.svg because you already know how to do it. Or tell me how it can be done. But searching on the internet I understood that I can not handle this task. Do you have time for this task? Thanking you in advance, Liliya Yu (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liliya Yu: Here it is: File:Brazil_Uzbekistan_locator.svg. Bazonka (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Bazonka! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2016 to you and your family! Good luck in everything! Peaceful sky over all Wikipedians! Liliya Yu (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respected Bazonka! And now I cannot connect your design with flags of the two Republic! What should I do? I promise I will do now the article only if I have my own pictures ...Liliya Yu (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liliya Yu: Try this code: {{Infobox Bilateral relations|Brazil-Uzbekistan|Brazil|Uzbekistan|map=Brazil_Uzbekistan_locator.svg}}. It will display the image below. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil-Uzbekistan relations
Map indicating locations of Brazil and Uzbekistan

Brazil
Uzbekistan
No. This unfortunately did not work. Compared with a similar article. There's another, but worked. https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&action=edit&section=0 I don't understand why? Liliya Yu (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't tell me that you wanted to use the image in Russian Wikipedia. An English Wikipedia template won't work there. The Russian equivalent seems fairly incomprehensible, but I'll have a look when I have more time. Bazonka (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do it. Probably because the image has been uploaded to English Wikipedia, and I can't figure out either how to inter-link to it from Russian Wikipedia, or how to upload it to Russian Wikipedia. You need to ask someone who understands how Russian Wikipedia works - it's different from English Wiki, not to mention the language barrier. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Bazonka! I didn't know about such restriction... Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2016 to you! Liliya Yu (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, Bazonka! Can you, please, upload here: commons:Category:Bilateral maps of Brazil the file that you have created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brazil_Uzbekistan_locator.svg !! Here - how to do this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_help I cann't do it because I am not author of this file. Thank you. Liliya Yu (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot upload it either. It keeps giving me "unknown" errors. I think your best approach would be upload it to Russian Wikipedia, but I have no idea how to do that. Bazonka (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brazil Uzbekistan locator.svg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brazil Uzbekistan locator.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Algeria Morocco Locator.svg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Algeria Morocco Locator.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY 11:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English[edit]

Information icon In a recent edit to the page An Post, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor: I am very familiar with WP:ENGVAR, but it is not relevant to my edit to An Post. In all varieties of English, the verb form of the noun "licence" is spelt "license", hence "licensing" and "licensed". (American English differs in that the noun is also spelt "license", but that's not pertinent here.) See MOS:S and any non-American dictionary. Bazonka (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not revert you, I just pointed out the reverting editor's viewpoint and despite what you say I tend to agree. ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ww2censor: you "tend to agree" despite all of the evidence to the contrary? Look, even An Post itself spells the verb with an S, so you haven't got a strong case at all. Bazonka (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tag these AWB edits with the "minor edit" flag? Without it, making the watchlists of editors in the areas you're targeting completely unreadable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Bazonka (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some dim sum for you![edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 09:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Bazonka (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Bazonka. You have new messages at Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/GA1.
Message added 15:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peter Sam Fan 15:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bazonka/Archive_14&oldid=1146348677"