User talk:Zocky/2008
AutoComplete[edit]
Please correct your code to catch one exception. Code with correction is here. If You want please write to me on polish quote. Sp5uhe (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll look at it one of this days. Thanks. Zocky | picture popups 05:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
jstools[edit]
Hello Zocky. That is some great work on the four js tools - I'm loving it after only 2 minutes :). I just wanted to ask what the LanguageLinks tool is. I think I might be interested in using it but you don't have an explanation like the others. Thanks BalkanFever 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- LanguageLinks changes the interlanguage links for articles, so that you see the titles of articles in other languages, and not just the name of the languages. Zocky | picture popups 05:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well in that case I am interested. Thank you the reply. One more question, do I copy the code present on your /monobook.js page, or the actual source code for that page? BalkanFever 08:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll install it for you. If you don't like it, just revert your monospace.js. Zocky | picture popups 17:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well in that case I am interested. Thank you the reply. One more question, do I copy the code present on your /monobook.js page, or the actual source code for that page? BalkanFever 08:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Your edits at Hey Slavs[edit]
Your edits at this article are to generalising. Poles were opposed to Panslavic movement in majority and supportive of Austro-Hungary. Panslavic movement was seen as tool of russification among Polish political movements. If you want sources I can gladly provide a number of them.--Molobo (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Just an example Polish Academic Information Center, University at Buffalo(text from Library of Congress Poland: A Country Study[1]
"Poles suffered no religious persecution in predominantly Catholic Austria, and Vienna counted on the Polish nobility as allies in the complex political calculus of its multinational realm. In return for loyalty, Austrian Poland, or Galicia, received considerable administrative and cultural autonomy. Galicia gained a reputation as an oasis of toleration amidst the oppression of German and Russian Poland. The Galician provincial Sejm acted as a semiautonomous parliamentary body, and Poles represented the region in the empire government in Vienna. In the late 1800s, the universities of Kraków and L'vov (Polish form Lwów) became the centers of Polish intellectual activity, and Kraków became the center of Polish art and thought. Even after the restoration of independence, many residents of southern Poland retained a touch of nostalgia for the days of the Habsburg Empire." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molobo (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there is an exception for left-facing images at WP:MOS#Images - it even suggests moving the TOC as we have done at Jane Austen. There is also an extensive discussion regarding this issue at Talk:Jane Austen, if you are interested. Awadewit | talk 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar for your sexy work[edit]
|
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
| Great work at js tools. (Is that how you call it?) Your work makes viewing images much easier and fun! мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |
Template:Delimitnum[edit]
From what I’ve been told by template authors, templates like Template:Delimitnum will start choking with twelve or more digits. If your template can handle this: 1579800.298728 wavelengths of light from this laser, then you are indeed a template master. :-) Good night. Greg L (my talk) 10:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the precision is, but it 1,579,800.298728 wavelengths of light from this laser looks correct, no? In any case, it's better to have a template that can do most numbers we need, then to wait for a parser function which will arrive who knows when. Zocky | picture popups 10:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- We can test it: {{delimitnum|1234567890.12345678901234567890}}: 1,234,567,890.123456. It seems that it can do 16 digits, and then starts messing up. That should be enough for most purposes, I guess, and we can use other templates if more than that is needed. 10:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Zocky, outstanding work. Thanks. See my larger post at Talk:Kilogram#Number_formatting. Greg L (my talk) 17:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are a mind reader! I was editing a message to you regarding separating the unit symbol with a space when the results started getting weird. Greg L (my talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- AFAICT, we can't fix the template 100% right, because at least Firefox insists on breaking lines after </span>, even before . I've now made the whole template a single nowrap span, but it still causes breaks before the trailing comma (as in your current example on kilogram. We need to either add the comma to the unit, i.e. {{delimitnum|100|||kg,}} or add a fifth argument for the trailing interpunction, i.e. {{delimitnum|100|||kg|,}} if we need to keep the unit separate. Zocky | picture popups 18:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are a mind reader! I was editing a message to you regarding separating the unit symbol with a space when the results started getting weird. Greg L (my talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. Firefox treats the close-span as a reason for allowing word-wrap at a comma. Safari doesn’t do that. Are you sure all the close-spans have been used before the unit symbol? I don’t quite understand why Firefox would treat this string:
</span></span> kg,
- …as a reason to do something different between the kg symbol and the comma. Since you and I work and sleep on widely different schedules, e-mail me here to give me a heads-up regarding this. Greg L (my talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, just remembered something - it can't work correctly for negative numbers as it is. It's relatively easy to fix, but I need to go to bed now. So, until I get up, don't use it for any negative numbers :) Zocky | picture popups 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Example code[edit]
- As of this writing anyway, it appears that the comma following the template is no longer a problem in Firefox. I note however, that the space after the “×” sign is missing. To take pressure off you and allow you greater freedom to explore wild trouble-shooting ideas without worry about screwing things up for a few minutes in Kilogram, I went back to span code in the article. I am fully behind you on this but think it better to not start using it in the article until the template is no longer in a state of flux.
P.S. After having spent some time here getting this sandbox all set up, I am feeling really good about it. I hope the problems you cited earlier are no longer an issue because it sure works well for me. Of course, I’ve spent most of my time here in this sandbox using Safari on a Mac but I also examined this sandbox using Firefox to check things like the comma; I’m not seeing problems. Once you get the gap on both sides of the “×” sign, I’m anxious to begin using it. I would propose starting with only one number-rich section of the Kilogram article, like Carbon–12, and sit back and admire your work for a day or two to see if you and I are content and you are sure you’re done tweaking the template. Then we go in and do the rest. I like this. A lot.
By the way, there is a section of the Kilogram article that features this text:
| “ | Clearly, having the magnitude of many of the units comprising the SI system of measurement ultimately defined by the mass of a 145-year-old, golf ball-size piece of metal is a tenuous state of affairs. The quality of the IPK must be diligently protected in order to preserve the integrity of the SI system. Yet, in spite of the best stewardship, the IPK has likely already lost 8.2 µg relative to the average mass of the worldwide ensemble of prototypes since the third periodic verification 35 years ago. Further, the world’s national metrology labs must wait for the fourth periodic verification to confirm whether the historical trends persisted. | ” |
- …uses a “{{days elapsed times factor}}” template that Random832 made several days ago. I had solicited his advise on where to get the template made and he made it himself on the spot. He and I were the first to use it. Random832 is also corresponding with the developer making the parser-function-based delimitnum “template”. As far as I know, it is supposed to have the exact same name as yours. Perhaps you might want to coordinate with him about what you’re doing. Maybe he can help on this template. Just a suggestion.
Here is some example text to exercise your template on. It isn’t punctuated exactly as I would really use, but is good for trial tests (Greg L (my talk) 01:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)):
- Hand Coded:
- In the following section, wherever numeric equalities are shown in ‘concise form’ — such as 1.85487(14) × 1043 Hz, —the two digits between the parentheses denotes the uncertainty at 1σ standard deviation (68% confidence level) in the two least significant digits of the significand.
- Template using
{{delimitnum|1.85487|14|43|Hz}},(comma outside): - In the following section, wherever numeric equalities are shown in ‘concise form’ — such as 1.85487(14) × 1043 Hz, —the two digits between the parentheses denotes the uncertainty at 1σ standard deviation (68% confidence level) in the two least significant digits of the significand.
Many times, paragraphs will be indented at their start if the preceding paragraph contains an unclosed span tag. Unclosed spans and weird stuff left over from templates might even make separate paragraphs glue together and other odd behavior. So if I use a bunch of template-generated numbers like this: 6.02214179(30) × 1023 and these: 1,579,800.298728 and 1.356392733 × 1050 Hz and 0.45359237 kg and 6.022461 and 6.0224613 and 1.85487(14) × 1043 Hz and finally, this one: 6.022461342, does the following paragraph line up?
Maybe this paragraph (which also begins with an nice, upright M) lines up with the above one. This paragraph was not set off from the previous one using either <br><br> or <p>. Here’s some greeked text to fill out the paragraph: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, maecenas eligendi tincidunt aenean, sit et hac hendrerit massa, morbi maecenas nec vel auctor. Aliquam sit, tincidunt justo arcu neque eu mi fames.
Maybe a short paragraph containing this: 6.02214179(30) × 1023
Maybe a short paragraph containing this: 1,579,800.29
Maybe a short paragraph containing this: 1.356392733 × 1050 Hz
Maybe a short paragraph containing this: 0.45359237 kg
Maybe a short paragraph containing this: 1.85487(14) × 1043 Hz
Maybe a short paragraph containing no value. Do they all left-justify?
As of this writing, everything lines up perfectly. Greg L (my talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Copied below, is some additional example text verbatim from Kilogram, that I revised with your template.
Template using {{delimitnum}}:
Similarly, the avoirdupois pound, used in both the Imperial system and U.S. customary units, is a unit of mass and its related unit of force is the pound-force. The avoirdupois pound is defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg, making one kilogram approximately equal to 2.205 avoirdupois pounds.
This new definition of the kilogram proposes to fix the Avogadro constant at precisely 6.02214179 × 1023 and the kilogram would be defined as “the mass equal to that of 83⅓ × 6.02214179 × 1023 atoms of carbon-12.”
…techniques to enrich the silicon until it is nearly pure silicon-28, which has an atomic mass of 27.9769271(7) g/mole. With this approach, the Avogadro constant would not only be fixed, but so too would the atomic mass of silicon-28. As such, the definition of the kilogram would be decoupled from carbon-12 and the kilogram would instead be defined as 1000/27.976927 × 6.02214179 × 1023 atoms of silicon-28 (≅35.7437397 fixed moles of silicon-28 atoms).
A variation on a carbon-12-based definition proposes to define the Avogadro constant as being precisely 84,446,8863 (≅6.02214098 × 1023) atoms.
Ultimately, the watt balance would define the kilogram in terms of the Planck constant, which is a measure that relates the energy of photons to their frequency. The Planck constant would be fixed, where h = 6.62606896 × 10–34 J·s (from the 2006 CODATA value of 6.62606896(33) × 10–34 J·s) and the kilogram would be defined as “the mass of a body at rest whose equivalent energy equals the energy of photons whose frequencies sum to 1.356392733 × 1050 Hz.”
Hand Coded:
Similarly, the avoirdupois pound, used in both the Imperial system and U.S. customary units, is a unit of mass and its related unit of force is the pound-force. The avoirdupois pound is defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg, making one kilogram approximately equal to 2.205 avoirdupois pounds.
This new definition of the kilogram proposes to fix the Avogadro constant at precisely 6.02214179 × 1023 and the kilogram would be defined as “the mass equal to that of 83⅓ × 6.02214179 × 1023 atoms of carbon-12.”
…techniques to enrich the silicon until it is nearly pure silicon-28, which has an atomic mass of 27.9769271(7) g/mol. With this approach, the Avogadro constant would not only be fixed, but so too would the atomic mass of silicon-28. As such, the definition of the kilogram would be decoupled from carbon-12 and the kilogram would instead be defined as 1000/27.9769271 × 6.02214179 × 1023 atoms of silicon-28 (≅35.7437397 fixed moles of silicon-28 atoms).
A variation on a carbon-12-based definition proposes to define the Avogadro constant as being precisely 84,446,8863 (≅6.02214098 × 1023) atoms.
Ultimately, the watt balance would define the kilogram in terms of the Planck constant, which is a measure that relates the energy of photons to their frequency. The Planck constant would be fixed, where h = 6.62606896 × 10–34 J·s (from the 2006 CODATA value of 6.62606896(33) × 10–34 J·s) and the kilogram would be defined as “the mass of a body at rest whose equivalent energy equals the energy of photons whose frequencies sum to 1.356392733 × 1050 Hz.”
Progressions of features and digits:
{{delimitnum|6.02214179|30|23|kg}} → 6.02214179(30) × 1023 kg, Hand coded → 6.02214179(30) × 1023 kg
{{delimitnum|1579800.298728}} → 1,579,800.298728, Hand coded → 1,579,800.298728
{{delimitnum|1.356392733||50|Hz}} → 1.356392733 × 1050 Hz, Hand coded → 1.356392733 × 1050 Hz
{{delimitnum|0.45359237|||kg}} → 0.45359237 kg, Hand coded → 0.45359237 kg
{{delimitnum|6.022461}} → 6.022461, Hand coded → 6.022461
{{delimitnum|6.0224613}} → 6.0224613, Hand coded → 6.0224613
{{delimitnum|6.02246134}} → 6.02246134, Hand coded → 6.02246134
{{delimitnum|6.022461342}} → 6.022461342, Hand coded → 6.022461342
{{delimitnum|10000000}} → 10,000,000, Hand coded → 10,000,000
{{delimitnum|1111111}} → 1,111,111, Hand coded → 1,111,111
{{delimitnum|2222222}} → 2,222,222, Hand coded → 2,222,222
{{delimitnum|3333333}} → 3,333,333, Hand coded → 3,333,333
{{delimitnum|4444444}} → 4,444,444, Hand coded → 4,444,444
{{delimitnum|5555555}} → 5,555,555, Hand coded → 5,555,555
{{delimitnum|6666666}} → 6,666,666, Hand coded → 6,666,666
{{delimitnum|7777777}} → 7,777,777, Hand coded → 7,777,777
{{delimitnum|8888888}} → 8,888,888, Hand coded → 8,888,888
{{delimitnum|9999999}} → 9,999,999, Hand coded → 9,999,999
{{delimitnum|120.120340560780}} → 120.12034056078, Hand coded → 120.120340560780
{{delimitnum|1.110110}} → 1.11011, Hand coded → 1.110110
{{delimitnum|1.111111}} → 1.111111, Hand coded → 1.111111
{{delimitnum|2.222222}} → 2.222222, Hand coded → 2.222222
{{delimitnum|3.333333}} → 3.333333, Hand coded → 3.333333
{{delimitnum|4.444444}} → 4.444444, Hand coded → 4.444444
{{delimitnum|5.555555}} → 5.555555, Hand coded → 5.555555
{{delimitnum|6.666666}} → 6.666666, Hand coded → 6.666666
{{delimitnum|7.777777}} → 7.777777, Hand coded → 7.777777
{{delimitnum|8.888888}} → 8.888888, Hand coded → 8.888888
{{delimitnum|9.999999}} → 9.999999, Hand coded → 9.999999
{{delimitnum|9.999999||||}} → 9.999999, Hand coded → 9.999999
Bug report[edit]
Zocky, I started to incorporate your template into the Carbon-12 section of Kilogram. I very carefully compared the edit preview to the current article and found a problem that appears to be an issue of trailing zeros just before a span. So I added some more proof-check tests (under the horizontal rule) above.
Check this code out:
A variation on a carbon-12-based definition proposes to define the Avogadro constant as being precisely 84,446,8863 (≅6.02214098 × 1023) atoms.
You can see strings with zeros and nines aren’t being properly dealt with. The above is coded as follows: {{delimitnum|6.02214098||23|}}) atoms but as of this writing, is returning “6.022 14 98” (fixed text). The “140” appears as “14”
Just in case you see something differently that I, here is what I am currently seeing with the second-from-bottom example:
{{delimitnum|9.999999}} → 9.99999900-616, Hand coded → 9.999999
Let me know when you think we’re good to go for another try. Greg L (my talk) 07:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
RFArb posting[edit]
With this edit, your comment overwrote the comments of another user. Was this intentional? Happy‑melon 21:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Of course not. I went and fixed it. Thanks for catching that. Zocky | picture popups 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Starting to upgrade Kilogram[edit]
Thank you Zocky. I’ve upgraded major portions of Kilogram and so far that has trimmed 805 bytes out of it. And I’m not done. It’s 11:45 PM and I’ve only proof-checked my revisions well enough to be 99% certain I didn’t accidentally change any values. I plan to play around tomorrow with window widths and more browsers but it looks like like your template works well and is bug free. And it sure tidies up the code for editors. Assuming nothing unexpected crops up, I’ll swap out most—if not all—the rest of the numbers over the next day or two.
The tradeoffs (give & take) on MOSNUM was that people using IE or Firefox were being driven crazy by gaps that looked too wide. I’ve long been rather insulated from the issue because I use Safari. Given that Safari is available for Windows users too, I feel sorry for those who don’t use it because its font handling is so superior; it antialiases all text and makes it look absolutely gorgeous—especially italicized text. Many IE & Firefox users insisted on 0.2-em gaps but such a narrow gap damned near disappeared on Safari. I note that the 0.25-em gaps following the digit 1 your template generates (rather than the special-case 0.20-em gaps) really do look a bit too wide when I look at Kilogram using Firefox. Would you have to add major wads of code to your template to treat gaps following the digit 1 differently? Greg L (my talk) 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It would be quite complicated, but as said before, it would also be wrong. In my Firefox on Windows, the gap looks somewhat wider in Arial, but exactly the same width in Times New Roman. If people don't like the irregularity in space widths, they'll just have to install fonts which are not buggy. Zocky | picture popups 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the difference in Kilogram after I converted every single numeric string to your {{delimitnum}} template. It resulted in a 2.07 kB reduction and, as you know, an enormously easier article to proofread. Many thanks. Other experts in templates said it couldn’t be done. You showed that while, clearly not easy, it can be done. Greg L (my talk) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Zocky. I just wanted to make you aware that I made a post here on Talk:MOSNUM regarding your new {{delimitnum}} template. We should be discussing formal MOSNUM policy for its adoption. See you there. Greg L (my talk) 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, your template worked fine in the sandbox and in Kilogram, but after I made my above post, some users found some cases where the template still breaks on some numbers that end with 1 or 01. Note that these users are all supporters of the basic idea of {delimitnum}. So we’ve got supporters left and right on this. It’s just that in my effort to alert the others of the availability of the template, we’ve now got a little public egg on our faces. Oh, well, everyone knows templates are damned hard. I’ve updated my sandbox with the problem values. I’m still leaving Kilogram with the template. However, the template clearly isn’t ready for the general user. If you don’t want to knock yourself out on this, I understand; we can always wait for the parser function (if it ever comes). Greg L (my talk) 00:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I’ve separated out a special section of the sandbox called Progressions of features and digits. It has 200 new serial progressions. Greg L (my talk) 02:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Zocky: This message is a duplicate of what I posted on Talk:MOSNUM, {{delimitnum}} template. I created an all new section of Delimitnum sandbox with all 3960 possible variations of two, three, and four-digit groupings. I was really tempted to just declare that this is good to go but knew we would have been making the judgment based largely on what we see in the sandbox. I knew better than that and added all possible combinations I can think of which might cause rounding errors. I’m glad I did too because two-digit groups following 5 thru 9 still suffer from rounding errors (with trailing “9”s). Three and four-digit groups are all good though! To see what I’m talking about, go to the two-digit groupings section (click the underlined “two” link, above), and search on the value
0.12501. Greg L (my talk) 20:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Zocky: Search for all ocurrances of the following:
0.125019
0.125069
0.125101
0.125241
Greg L (my talk) 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Zocky, I saw in your response to Woodstone that templates don’t have access to the necessary parser functions to do character-based delimiting (vs. math-based). You seem to be pretty handy with templates. Have you ever looked into writing magic words (parser functions)? Is that feasible in this case; that is, would it save time & effort? Greg L (my talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Slovenia[edit]
Hi there! You are welcome to join WikiProject Slovenia . We need as many Slovene members as possible!!
♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Tuđman transliteration[edit]
Hi
I don't know whether you have seen but there is a similar discussion on the article about Franjo Tuđman.
Similar discussion as with Novak Đoković: some guys want to change đ into dj at the name of the article.
Could you help me with that ? For giving arguments?
--Anto (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Slavic peoples[edit]
In the future I propose to enter referenced data. The cultural differences and identity can be referened. Your continued entry of information that you source by your own opinion is not helpful.--Molobo (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Molobo, we have discussed this to bits over a year ago. All the encyclopedias, including all the Polish encyclopedias, call Slavs an ethnic branch of IE peoples. The opposite view is your personal idiosyncratic POV. Sorry, but the world does not agree. You'll just have to get over it. Zocky | picture popups 15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- And your other contributions, deletion of sentence regarding well documented divisions(also found in encyclopedias), POV treatment as a unified group "they make a third of Europe's population" ?
--Molobo (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I restored the sentence you explained, for now. We can continue to other issues now. Please don't revert blindly.--Molobo (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Look, I have discussed the whole intro with you previously, and you are now just recycling your POV pushing. There's hardly anything left to discuss. Zocky | picture popups
No you didn't, the claim about 'common identity' is not supproted either by sources nor by scholary works and it seems to be ideological, you never presented nothing supporting it besides your opinion. I can add refererences on divisions and cultural oppositions within Slavic groups if that is needed to NPOV the article. Please discuss the issues rather then edit warring. Also please do note that I wll continue on the article as it misses important pieces about religious and cultural differences among various speakers of several languages with slavic roots. I also proposed a better intro version [2] --Molobo (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ahem - as I have told you before, "identity" means "what somebody think they are". All the Slavic peoples think they're Slavic peoples. That means they have a common identity. There's nothing ideological about it, it's just that you refuse to understand the meaning of words. Zocky | picture popups 16:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again personal opinions no references ? And false ones. They were and are Poles considering themsefls Sarmatians and not Slavs. And there is plenty ideological claim that all people classified as Slavs share to some degree a common identity, especially since sources can be easly found abot resistance to claims about common identity. The current sentence is completely POV as it claim a common identity is more or less existant in all people classified as Slavs, while the fact is many don't and in fact some go right against it. I propose to remove the sentence and explain in detail the divisions and the issue in Ethno-Cultural subdivisions --Molobo (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reference for what identity means? Try any dictionary. Zocky | picture popups 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you think that Poles are Sarmatians, not Slavs, then Poles are a Sarmatian people and not a Slavic people, so you should work on removing Poles from that page completely. Zocky | picture popups 16:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- You confuse my views, with historically existant views which we as Wikipedians are to document. I see you refused to answer on non-existance of Slavic identity in some people. We can't talk about "common identity more or less existant" if people do not have that identity. Lack of a trait means non-existance of that trait not its lesser existance. And your claim "All the Slavic peoples think they are Slavic peoples" is highly ideological, unsupported by references, and plain wrong considering beliefs like Sarmatism, you might not agree with that belief but it did and does exist so your claim is proven wrong in that regard. Also please don't resort to personal remarks. If I know about certain beliefs it doesn't mean I believe in them.--Molobo (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Look, this is really my last response. That all the Slavic peoples "think" (as much as a whole nation can "think") that they're Slavic peoples is a fact, easily provable (and previously proved by me personally to you personally) . That some members of those peoples don't think that they are Slavs, is also a fact, and it's what "present to different extent" means. In short, my version of the intro reflects the majority view, and specifically mentions that it's not universal. It already says what you want it to say. Zocky | picture popups 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- You confuse my views, with historically existant views which we as Wikipedians are to document. I see you refused to answer on non-existance of Slavic identity in some people. We can't talk about "common identity more or less existant" if people do not have that identity. Lack of a trait means non-existance of that trait not its lesser existance. And your claim "All the Slavic peoples think they are Slavic peoples" is highly ideological, unsupported by references, and plain wrong considering beliefs like Sarmatism, you might not agree with that belief but it did and does exist so your claim is proven wrong in that regard. Also please don't resort to personal remarks. If I know about certain beliefs it doesn't mean I believe in them.--Molobo (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again personal opinions no references ? And false ones. They were and are Poles considering themsefls Sarmatians and not Slavs. And there is plenty ideological claim that all people classified as Slavs share to some degree a common identity, especially since sources can be easly found abot resistance to claims about common identity. The current sentence is completely POV as it claim a common identity is more or less existant in all people classified as Slavs, while the fact is many don't and in fact some go right against it. I propose to remove the sentence and explain in detail the divisions and the issue in Ethno-Cultural subdivisions --Molobo (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"That all the Slavic peoples "think" (as much as a whole nation can "think") that they're Slavic peoples is a fact"
Source ?
"That some members of those peoples don't think that they are Slavs, is also a fact, and it's what "present to different extent" means"
Weasel wording, if somebody doesn't identify as such or opposes claim that he shares similar identity it doesn't mean he "presents in a different way"-it should be made clear he doesn't see himself as such and opposes different identity.
"In short, my version of the intro reflects the majority view"
Source please.--Molobo (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sources are in the talk page archives, as you well know, since you have previously pestered me to provide them. Now, if you don't have anything new to say, kindly stop. Zocky | picture popups 18:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no sources provided. Only your opinions. On the other hand they are plenty of sources speaking of huge cultural sepration and different cultural development between various descendants of Slavs, and they are good for inclusion for example Encyclopedia Brittanica.--Molobo (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank You[edit]
I just want to say thank you for standing up to the hysteria that has overtaken the BLP discussion. I found your comments extremely apt, what is more, they made me reflect. If JS, sr. had such a problem, why didn't he just fix it himself? It isn't like Wikipedia is that hard to use. Anyways, thanks for taking a stand in the name of preserving our bios, it is quite a shame that it had come down to actually having to fight these absurd proposals. To be quite honest, I have half a mind to nominate WP:BLP for deletion, but I suppose that is a violation of WP:POINT... --Dragon695 (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Image-license[edit]
Template:Image-license has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Greetings ZockPuppet[edit]
Zocky friend ZockPuppet maybe? Clever ZockPuppet make writing upside down. But no code appear 'zilla page![3] How make go upside down? 'Zilla need upside down writing for reader exercise. Please show code for flopping over following message: "Bishonen and Geogre". Good ZockPuppet! bishzilla ROARR!! 06:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC).
Allegations of apartheid deletion notification[edit]
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobots, but Somebots[edit]
Hi there zockpuppet. I have the templates {{nobots}} and {{noAutosign}} on my talkpage, thinking myself thus doubly secured from the Sinebot and such-like. I just have a thing about the signbots—I don't want them chasing my guests, who were probably just about to go back and do their own signing in any case. (Especially if it was me...) Anyway, no, the bots are still stalking the page. I just noticed an autosigned post on it today. What gives? Am I gonna have to get Bishzilla to eat the entire bots? Even she might get a tummyache from that. :-( The reason I'm bothering you (belatedly throwing a wikilovin' compliment into the oven, like yeast after the bread) is that you're so clever, you know, dear Zocky, so I thought you'd be sure to know how to keep the bots away. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC).
- Back again, Zock. User:Tex has most kindly taken care of the bot problem, so no worries. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
Re: Bambina[edit]
Not a problem; you can undelete it. Wizardman 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Picture Popups[edit]
Could you look into making them work with google chrome?
Thanks! --Wyatt915✍ 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
never mind
--Wyatt915✍ 23:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Zdravo[edit]
The article you helped writing, Slovenian presidential election, 2007 is now on peer review, you are welcome to leave comments. Greetings. --Tone 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Zocky, I wonder if you could lend a hand with the current issues in the WikiProject. The details are in the talkpage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Val[edit]
Template:Val has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Delimitnum[edit]
Template:Delimitnum has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)