Jump to content

User talk:IJA: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Turkish Flame (talk | contribs)
2,842 edits
Line 200: Line 200:
But why do you consider ise more British?
But why do you consider ise more British?
[[User:Dejvid|Dejvid]] ([[User talk:Dejvid|talk]]) 00:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Dejvid|Dejvid]] ([[User talk:Dejvid|talk]]) 00:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

== AfD nomination of Kosovo – Panama relations ==

Hi! [[Kosovo – Panama relations]] has been nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. Please feel free to explain your opinions. Go and see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo – Panama relations]]. Thank you for your time! --<span style="border: 2px black solid; background-color: black;">[[User:Turkish Flame|<font face="Comic Sans MS" color="lime">'''Turkish Flame'''</font>]] [[User talk:Turkish Flame|<font face="Comic Sans MS" color="lime"><sup><u>☎</u></sup></font>]]</span> 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:40, 4 May 2009

I am a Yorkshireman living in the Western Highlands of Scotland. I mainly edit things related to Scotland, Yorkshire, Europe, Politics, History, Film/TV, and Football.
I support the mighty Sheffield United and the mighty St Mirren.
And I love travelling, especially around my continent of Europe.
I was previously retired from Wikipedia, however, I'm now partially out of retirement.
I proudly support Scottish independence and I am unapologetically Pro-European.
I am also a proud Vegan for animals rights, the environment, and health (in that order).

Useful link for referencing: Wikipedia:Citation templates.
Useful link for warning users: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
Useful link for patrolling new pages: Special:Newpages
Useful link for maintenance tags: Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance
Useful link for creating bios: Wikipedia:Artist biography article template
My Profile at Wikimedia Commons.

Nationality

My Travels

Articles I created

Actors

Former Yugoslavia

People

Other

Politics

Sheffield United

Football Players

Other

Miscellaneous

Football Players

Other

This page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox or Netscape. For God's sake, don't use Internet Explorer!!!


Stolen Kosovo

Hello Ijanderson. I thought you might be interested in this documentary about Kosovo, as it tells the story from a Serb perspective. You may not agree with everything but it's interesting and sad to see the suffering of the Kosovo Serbs, Romani, non-Albanians, etc.

Here are the YouTube links to the documentary called "Stolen Kosovo": Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

--Tocino 07:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more on "Disruptive behaviour"

Thank you for your thoughts, especially on your expressed belief in my in-good-faith actions. (I appreciate that). I've recently discovered (perhaps rediscovered) that the article was possibly semiprotected and that my bold (as per WP:BOLD and perhaps contrary to WP:CYCLE) act of trying to rename it might require some form of consensus on that step. I could take the liberty and not agree with you that I have given a proposal at all, exactly because of my act (without any prior discussion about it) given, and if so, I could conclude that then there was nothing to reject in the first place. Not to mention that the terms overwhelming or even majority are to the least inappropriate, if not even biased. I concur that the argument of temporal proximity of discussions and renamings could be regarded as an argument for not to rename again, but I think it doesn't suffice. Thank you for the link provided, I cherish the gesture a lot.

I could again be free and express my disagreement with your opinion that I have to perform the rename via WP:RM, for I could consider that there is no obligatory procedure to be taken for such an act of renaming. Why, WP:RM is merely a guideline, if it is at all - nothing is stated at the page. Perhaps a project is the right name to select for WP:RM, as it is implied on the page itself. Since, the term project inherently has no attributes of obligation - if not even posesses a certain quality of casualness - I might considered the term has quite different characteristics. But, I honestly appreciate you informing me on this issue. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Ijanderson expressed his concerns on your disruptive behavior on my talk page and although it is a fact that WP:RM is a guideline, all controversial move proposals must go through it in order to have any validity. Persistent, constant proposals are just a waste of time for everybody, especially if being pushed by a single user against everyone else, and hardly tolerated on an article that is under an Arbcom probation against disruption. Húsönd 16:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I might consider and then might even agree with you that perhaps one could point me to WP:DBAD (here spelled in a form of euphemism for my potential benefit :-) ), as I consider you had pointed me (  ;-) ), but that still hasn't given any solutions to the disagreement which goes on the talk page (here I mean the Talk:International recognition of Kosovo page). As far as the WP:RM (if this is what you had in mind) is concerned, my opinion is that the third conversator Hús thinks other of the procedure (I'm still not sure that there is one). Moreover, I'm certain that for the time being he doesn't think of another POV of the "procedure", because of this words of his, which are somehow unclear (at least to me): "Any new proposals will be speedy closed. Persistence will be dealt with sanctions as per the WP:ARBMAC probation this article is under the scope of." concerning the closure of "proposal". I'm not sure if he meant new proposals through the talk page of International recognition of Kosovo ("IroK") or through the WP:RM. Actually, I find WP:RM somehow vague on the sequence of steps to be taken when new request/proposal is to be made. I've tried to follow the procedure proposed as it is given at WP:RM, but then I might misunderstood something. I might consider asking for explanation on the very own project's page, as for that matter. Hus, as a formalist as I consider you at the moment, I must ask you now this: when you wrote all controversial move proposals must go through... in order to have any validity you actully wanted to write all controversial move proposals should go through...in order to have any validity. I suppose I pointed out ( one might consider I've used irony, I apologize to those) to the ambiguity of interpretation of the potential procedure, since the very procedure hasn't been tagged as a guideline, but still named a project, to the least. Maybe, some other place exists, which I'm not aware of - I apologize in advance for me being somewhat a whiner, since I've been passive and not searching for potential one myself. Not to mention judgemental and still non-constructive enough, to contribute myself (although recognition of the problem might be considered as form of contiributing action :-? :-/ ). Sorry for that.
Ijanderson977, you asked: Why are you not claiming that this article has a POV title: International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Well, actually, I do consider this title is biased also. But personally I consider the "IroK" more globally important, not just to me, as one might think it is. If the bias is dealt with this issue (IroK title), it could be dealt elsewhere also. And IMHO it is good to keep the discussion in one place -> maybe creating a new page, where this discussion concerning the term "recognition" (or more) could be taken, should be considered as an idea.
All the best. Biblbroks's talk 08:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, WP:RM is rather vague, but although you are right that controversial proposals just "should" go through RM, in fact what you get due to Wikipedia's tradition on controversial moves is that they "must" go that way. Otherwise any outcome is disputed, drama and move wars follow, and after mediation the matter is settled through a proposal at RM anyway. Tradition also maintains that once there is a proposal to move an article, the same matter should not be brought to the community's attention for a few months, otherwise everybody would be just going over the same arguments endlessly. Húsönd 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands

No more news on Solomon Islands. I reckon their Director of Immigration was incorrect when he said that they'd recognised. But who knows? Without an official statement either way, there's not much we can do. Bazonka (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland

We are now dividing our members into active, semi-active (have not edited a Poland-related article in more then three months) and inactive (have not edited at all for three months or more). You are active on Wikipedia but I see you've not edited any Poland-related articles in in many months; we are moving you to semi-active members category. Please consider participating in our project activities again in the future, we would love to work more closely with you again! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move yourself to active members, and tell us about your interests! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chat

Msn. Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmet

Yep sure, it's the short form for "Kosovo i Metohija" which means Kosovo and Metohia in Serbian. Kosovo itself is short form of "Kosovo polje" (Kosovo polye) which means "Blackbird's field" (kos = blackbird, ovo = 's). And metohia is a traditional churchland, basically that area is filled with medieval Serbian churches and heritage (in case you missed it, that would be the main reason Serbia is so hard to let Kosovo go) with the most exceptional ones being listed on UNESCO world heritage so therefore it is a metohija. Cheers --Avala (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:AlbanianPassportVisaFree.png

Thanks for uploading File:AlbanianPassportVisaFree.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chat

MSN. Chat. Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just a thanks for the Barnstar, and also your work on the article itself and obviously the Yorkshire problem, thanks again. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only started using SVG since 2008, I had no idea how it worked, the only software I use is Inkscape, so good look! -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and ENGVAR/ ISE

A couple of reverts is not my definition of an edit war and surely it can't be yours either because you've also reverted me twice. I mean - can it? (In fact you seem to think you have made 3 reverts which I wouldn't consider to be true. Your first change I wouldn't count as a revert at all as you left most of my edit intact).

I would be curious to know when it was agreed that the page should be ise British rather than ize British but I accept that if there is such an agreement then I am in the wrong.

But why do you consider ise more British? Dejvid (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kosovo – Panama relations

Hi! Kosovo – Panama relations has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to explain your opinions. Go and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo – Panama relations. Thank you for your time! --Turkish Flame ☎ 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IJA&oldid=287882175"