User talk:Bazonka/Archive 9

Question!

I have fixed some dablinks (more than 50 certainly) but still can not see my name in The Monthly DAB Challenge! Do I need to do anything to get my name updated there? --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You're there, although you haven't made the top-20 on the main DPL page. See [1]. It might have taken a few hours for your edits to be taken into account. Currently it's only showing 16 dabs though - I'm not sure why the others weren't counted. Keep dabbing! Bazonka (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Do I loose point if I tag "Don't know so "dn". There is another possibility– I have not seen anyone undoing my edits!--Tito Dutta ✉ 07:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You dont lose points, but you don't gain points either. However, it is better to tag a dubious link with dn than to guess and link to the wrong article. Bazonka (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

San Marino and Abkhazia

Hello Bazonka! I saw that some time ago you wrote in the article "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia" about San Marino. "The San Marino authorities are planning to establish political, cultural and scientific contacts with Abkhazia." with Russian ref. Last month the State Secretary of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino with a statement in reference to the recent positions taken by the United Left (not SM Gov), favorable to the recognition of the self-proclaimed "Republic of Abkhazia," the Secretary of State for Foreign and Political Affairs, Antonella Mularoni, wishes to state the official position of the Government. San Marino government does not recognize Abkhazia as an independent state and maintains a position of absolute respect for the territorial integrity of Georgia. Like most of the countries and international organizations, San Marino has no intention to make such recognition. This position is continually expressed in international fora and whenever it shows the need or opportunity is written by SM Gov. Segreteria di Stato per gli Affari Esteri e Politici I tried to write something about this problem, but my English is modest. If you have time can edit the two news about SM to have coherence. Irvi Hyka (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

I've rewritten the text, cutting it down to just the salient points. Bazonka (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Population data

I've had a look at Metadata which really seems just for us! The data will be changed as the poulation (etc) increases. I'll hold fire until that's released in a few months time. Diolch am dy help! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Surapong Tovichakchaikul

The article Surapong Tovichakchaikul has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have added citation there. There are lots of Government documents, so adding citation was easy.--Tito Dutta ✉ 19:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tito Dutta. I'm surprised I didn't add any references - obviously not thinking that day! Bazonka (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievement will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to Bazonka, for successfully fixing 2220 links in the challenge of June 2012.

Rcsprinter (gas) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Bazonka (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian opposition

Hello Bazonka! I saw that you had removed the section about the recognition of Kosovo by Syria. Syrian opposition or Syrian National Council is not simple opposition but by some countries is recognised as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Seeing the article International recognition of the Syrian National Council, noted that Libya, France, Spain, United States, United Kingdom, Egypt, Albania and Kosovo recognised SNC as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. SNC except international recognition has control in one part of the territory. I propose to restore the information on the invitation they have given to Kosovo. Irvi Hyka (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you should discuss it on the relevant talk page per WP:BRD. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Campbell Island

Hi Bazonka - sorry to have created work by putting location information on the various lines of longitude into the wrong pages of the articles! I note that you removed the information about Campbell Island, New Zealand from the 169th E article], and, yes, more recent maps than the one I was using do show that the meridian passes to the west by some 900 metres, passing through the larger of the small offshore stacks of the Hook Keys. Is it worth adding Hook Keys to the article? Grutness...wha? 00:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Google Earth shows that the meridian does not pass through any islands or rocks. It seems to pass just to the east of the Hook Keys. Of course, if you have more accurate data, then please share it. Bazonka (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take Google Earth's word over the maps I'm using - though I might look up the LINZ topographical map of the Campbell Islands next time I'm in the library to double check. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Small question concerning Laptev Sea

I agree that wiki-links and additional remarks in brackets are helpful, but are you sure the citation is really literal otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brn-Bld (talk • contribs) 13:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "literal". The quoted text is a word-for-word, warts-and-all copy of the text in the IHO document. The bit about the Kara Sea limit is copied from a different part of the document, hence the square brackets. Bazonka (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Do not tolerate harassment/irrelevant naming of the Talk page sections (South China Sea :Talk)

Hi Bazonka pls. stop tolerating harassment/irrelevant naming of the sections in the South China Sea talk page. You know very clear that based on wikipedia guidelines, the Article's Talk Page (SECTION names) is reserved for ISSUES RELATED to the article, and NOT names of editors/users. The section name made by Benlisquare (entitled @fabyan17) is already a personal attack to the user and not the issue being debated. The proper venue is in the user's talk page. Your action is being disruptive and manifests double-standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

An inappropriate section title is not a reason to delete the entire content of that section - you may rename the section if necessary. If you disagree with the section's content, then post an appropriate response, a counter-argument. But WP:TPO is very clear - "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". Bazonka (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Maps

Hey, I like the maps of parallels as borders between states and provinces. Hope you continue and make more! Pfly (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Working on more right at the moment... Bazonka (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimeeting

Hi Bazonka, sorry to ask on your talk page but I need your help. Where can i find the dates and location for the next meeting of wikiuser of the Northwest/Manchester? Have been looking but can't find the right page. Sorry to bother you and thanks in advance!--Sal73x (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look as though any more meetups have been arranged for Manchester or Liverpool. The details of the last Manchester meetup are here, and there is a table showing all upcoming meetups. Perhaps we should arrange something - I'll contact User:RexxS and User:HJ_Mitchell who are generally instrumental in organising these pissups intellectual debates. It would be good to meet you. Bazonka (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

We've arranged something for 20 October - see meta:Meetup/Manchester/15. I've also proposed a meetup in Liverpool on 24 November. Bazonka (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! and sorry for late reply. The info is much appreciated. Unfortunately I can't make it for the two planed meetings but will save the link and keep an eye out for the next available. Thanks again and looking forward to meet you.--Sal73x (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Attack due to editing

Hello,

I received the following from you:

Hello, I'm Bazonka. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of airports in Serbia (with Kosovo) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Also, please read WP:NPOV. Bazonka (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of airports in Serbia (with Kosovo), you may be blocked from editing. Bazonka (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I removed the content that you returned after you sent me the initial message. That time I *DID* put in an edit summary, yet minutes later I am being attacked and threatened. What seems to be the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvat (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Not putting an edit summary is only a minor problem. The main issue was your removal of content that was intended to maintain a neutral point of view in the article (see WP:NPOV). In Wikipedia we cannot take sides - we can't take the position that Kosovo is an independent country, nor can we take the position that it is part of Serbia. It's not easy, but in the List of airports in Serbia (with Kosovo) article, we use the "(in Kosovo)" qualifier because it is ambiguous and can be interpreted in either way: Serbia with Kosovo as an integral part; or Serbia with the seperate entity of Kosovo. Removal of "(in Kosovo)" means that we are taking the pro-Serb side of the argument. This is presumably your personal opinion, which is fine in other contexts, but remember that Wikipedia must remain neutral. Bazonka (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Presumably this is the right way to respond(ie edit), as I don't see anything along the lines of a "reply" button.

As far as the technicalities of an integral part ambiguity goes, I think it's bs, as it would be like saying "List of Monarchs of UK(with Wales included)" or "List of American presidents of USA". There is simply no good relation there. In the article in question, the former is already including the latter, by simply being a collective term, regardless of the status of Kosovo's independence.

As far as the politics go, the intent of the edit had nothing to do with them. In fact, I was attempting to do exactly what you are describing - Protecting both sides. If you look at the history of edits for that article, you'll see that about two weeks ago, give or take, I edited a good deal of it(mostly removing closed facilities, adding some new ones, editing links, editing spelling errors, location codes and similar). My intent(at least what it was in good nature, but which may not remain after this), was to update all such articles for the region(not just in Serbia). I was planning on leaving the Serbia-related articles wholly Serbian and the Kosovo ones{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Kosovo} wholly Kosovian(a term I guess?).

Judging by what you said however, it seems the place isn't open to contributions, unless they are done in some quirky way. I guess I just won't bother doing what I had planned, as I don't believe in the whole neutral nonsence....even if I, as a Serb, have no issue with Kosovo currently being independent. I do have an issue with the way that volunteer organizations like this behave. Don't bother banning me, as I won't bother fixing those articles further.

Zvat (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your earlier edits were fine. But neutrality is absolutely critical to Wikipedia - I'm sorry that you think that it's nonsense, but if you can't put aside your own opinions (e.g. "the former is already including the latter") and consider the opinions of others (e.g. that the former and the latter are separate) then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you.

Wikipedia is not an organisation as you suggest - it is a collectivity of many independent people, and it works on collaboration and discussion. If you feel strongly that your edits were valid, then discuss them on the article's talk page, or perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo or a similar forum to get the opinions of others. However, you will have a hard time convincing people to overlook your WP:POV. Bazonka (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

After reading your comments again and having a think about them overnight, I've come to the conclusion that they were not vandalism, and I was wrong to say that they were. I should have assumed good faith, and I apologise for not doing so. Nevertheless, I do still feel justified in reverting your edits because they were biased (although possibly unintentionally). Regards, Bazonka (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Jean Berlie

Hi Bazonka, I have just added a number of categories to the article Jean Berlie and am starting to realize that I might have put some categories which are not appropriate. I am not sure anymore of when to categorize and not to categorize. Could you please have a quick look at it and cut the categories that are not justified? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.100.121 (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories are not really my area of expertise, but my first impressions are that you have added far too many. Only categories that are directly related to Berlie should be used, e.g. "French anthropologists" and "1936 births". Many of the other categories that you've used may have some link to Berlie, but they're not what the article is about, e.g. "Islam in Burma" and "Ethnic groups in Asia" - these should be removed. I suggest you read WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT. I'll have another look at your categories later, when I have more time. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will look at it again too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.100.121 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of the categories, leaving only those that are directly related to the subject matter - Berlie himself. Sorry if I've done too much. As I said, categorisation is not my area of expertise, so if you disagree with this decision then you might be best discussing it at WT:CAT. Bazonka (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Image request

I see you made the File:Poland USA Locator.svg. Would you consider making a locator map for my new article, Poland–Spain relations? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow. Bazonka (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Any more? Bazonka (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop deleting

Hi Bazonka. Why did you delete my change of map. I don't see why you are to decide that. The other map was replaced with this recent one, and it's almost the same, just that it's not a physical one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannover95 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo is a contentious subject matter and we should always tread with caution, remembering that we must maintain a neutral point of view. Therefore we must show both sides of the argument, and neither imply that Kosovo is an independent state, nor that it is a province of Serbia. It's not easy. A compromise was reached when we made the Kosovo article solely about the geographic location, leaving aside its political status - this is covered in two separate articles. The current map is neutral because it is geographical and not political; Kosovo's status is not implied one way or the other. But the map that you tried to replace it with shows Kosovo from the pro-independence point of view - it is shown to be distinct from Serbia. This may be your personal view, but it is not a view that Wikipedia can uphold.

Please note that new discussions should always go at the bottom of talk pages, and you must remember to sign your posts. Bazonka (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

((The current map is neutral because it is geographical and not political; Kosovo's status is not implied one way or the other)). I have to say that your statement is totally wrong. Kosovo is right now shown as a province of Serbia, which is not neutral at all. I mean, come on, look at the other map below, you can see that Kosovo is a sovereign state, we can't have two different one. And this map that I added was also neutral in the sense that all cities were written in Albanian, Serbian and even Turkish, it couldn't be more neutral. So what you say right now is strange. And by the way, how do you sign and what does that mean, I'm new here. And the reason why I'm new here is just because I am so tired seeing when facts are totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannover95 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

On your preferred map (File:Kosovo - Kosova topo en.png), the line that shows the border between Kosovo and Serbia-proper (long dash, short dash) is exactly the same style as the line that shows the border between Kosovo and Macedonia. More tellingly, the title of the map is "Republic of Kosovo", which is clearly WP:POV.

On the map that's currently in the article (File:Kosovo map-en.svg), the border between Kosovo and Serbia-proper (short dash) is different from the border with Macedonia (long dash, short dash). The key distinguishes these as "recognized border" and "disputed border". Whichever side of the argument you're on, this is neutral. There is also no title to the map, so there isn't any bias there. I don't understand how you think that this shows Kosovo as a province of Serbia.

The other map doesn't show Kosovo as a sovereign state. It is ambiguous. It's just a red shape on the map, and it's not obviously separate from Serbia or part of it.

In any case, this is a highly contentious article and any significant edits should really be discussed on the talk page.

To sign your posts, you should click the "signature and timestamp" button at the top of the edit box, or put four tildes (~~~~) after your text. You should also have a look at WP:INDENT as well. Don't worry about getting it wrong - we were all new once! Bazonka (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You should request a page move. See WP:RM. Bazonka (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Thank you for telling me how to do it, but as I said, it seems complicated and I suggest that you do it. I'd be glad if you did that :) Thanks. Hannover95 (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to do that because I don't strongly support the proposed change. It would be odd for me to propose a move and then not argue in favour of it. But I'm happy to help you to propose the move - it shouldn't be that difficult. The part of the RM process that you need to follow is explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. Create a new section at the bottom of Talk:Kosovo and insert {{subst:requested move|Kosovo (region)}} followed by your reasoning for the move. (Change "Kosovo (region)" to something else if you prefer.) Let me know if you have any questions. Bazonka (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Seto

Hi, Could you possibly explain your activity? As I see you are a stranger in the Japanese district. You are devastating our Wiki. We have to use consequently only one Hepburn transcription. If we follow your system, we will have improbable mess!! You can use the IHO originals in brackets. The IHO original is equal to one horrible error. Please, correct your mistakes. --Seibun (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the word "devastating" is perhaps a little melodramatic. The IHO definition of the sea's extents is a direct quote from their 1953 document, which, whilst old, is the most recent definition that has been published. This definition uses obsolete spellings, such as Kyûsû instead of the modern Kyushu, but it is still the official definition. Because we are giving a direct quotation, changing the spellings is not acceptable, even if we may prefer to use more modern ones. Doing so would be an error because we would be stating that IHO said something that they actually didn't say. I have added a note of clarification to the article to hopefully alleviate this problem. Bazonka (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Great. --Seibun (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bazonka. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 23:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bazonka,

Please stop deleting changes to the article "Arabian Sea".If someone's knowledge does not cover a specific topic I guess It might be a bit unwise to drive in. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.163.184.237 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to become familiar with WP:RS. You cannot possibly claim that a song or a racehorse named "Persian Sea" is valid evidence that the name is also an alternative name for the Arabian Sea. Also, Facebook is not a reliable source. Bazonka (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to check the Persian page of the article.There are several credible sources in either Arabic or Persian.I hope you can read Persian. Official daily newspaper in Iran:http://hamshahrionline.ir/details/129733 Persian Gulf Study Center:http://www.persiangulfstudies.com/fa/index.asp?p=pages&ID=613&Sub=175 Offcial website of qeshm Island:http://www.qeshmonline.com/pedia/90/پيشينه_هزاران_ساله_دريای_پارس Most credible Persian dictionary:http://www.loghatnaameh.org/dehkhodaworddetail-ab06ad2294b9451eb32f1fc7658319ac-fa.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.163.184.237 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Then use those sources and remove the ridiculous racehorse etc. However, note that there is already an Alternative names section in the article, and the information would be better placed there. Bazonka (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, those articles are mostly about the Persian Gulf, which isn't the same place. And in any case, they seem to be rather WP:POV. What we need is a source that definitively says (preferably in English) that the Persian Sea is an alternative name for the Arabian Sea. Bazonka (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo

Twice 2008. --E4024 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Bazonka (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiSyzygy

Hi, why did you take out the link to tweets? That seems a little unnecessary. Wikisyzygy (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean in the Uses and gratifications theory article.

Tweets was a redirect to Tweet, which is a disambiguation page (I have subsequently changed it to redirect to Twitter). Per WP:INTDAB, pages should not (normally) have links to disambiguation pages. I was cleaning up all links to Tweet (see WP:DPL), changing some to Tweet (singer) and others to Twitter etc. In the Uses and gratifications theory article there was already a link to Twitter in the same sentence as Tweets; a second link to the same article was unnecessary (per WP:OVERLINK) and so rather than changing it to link to Twitter I unlinked Tweets.

I hope that makes sense, but I am happy to clarify further if necessary. Bazonka (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that does clarify it. Wikisyzygy (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)