User talk:Bosonic dressing

Maps for continents - proposal

(Glances up. That was messy. While you were blocked I got talking with the other editor, before they were blocked, and it was interesting, to say the least).

Anyway... it looks like Antarctica may be on board - the editor who was opposed before is happy with the new Europe-style map, though they'd be happier with "blue" instead of green, which I think is fair enough. I'd like to hear some view from Arctic about this too, since "Arctic" isn't a continent - I was thinking maybe display the 10°C isotherm area in blue, but I'll wait until someone there responds before throwing new ideas into the mix.

One stumbling block is the "multi-continents" - Afro-Eurasia in particular, but Eurasia and possibly Americas too - the new Europe-style map only shows a hemisphere, and Afro-Eurasia extends beyond a hemisphere. Eurasia is pretty distorted too, even if it does fit. My thinking was we might ignore Afro-Eurasia and Eurasia (and possibly Americas) for this exercise, and stick to "the traditional" continents?

Anyway, I'm thinking aloud at this point - I wanted to get your feedback before I post at the relevant talk pages, which I'll do again before going any further with this.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly (late night last night...!) you're saying Arctic land should be dark-blue, and Arctic sea (i.e. the Arctic Ocean north of the 10°C isotherm should be light-blue? I'm happy with this. Arctic is kind of a special case, anyway: not a continent, but should be consistent with Antarctica.

No thoughts on too-big-for-their-own-good continents just yet - I was kind of ignoring them ;-) I like your idea re: the UN flag; Afro-Eurasia is mostly Northern Hemisphere, and that part in the Southern hemisphere is Northerly enough to escape too much distortion. This would then mean that we'd be using a different style for some continents, however, and I'd definitely want to run the idea past the respective articles before actioning it.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I've not considered countries - partly for the reason you mention (small countries like Vatican City, Singapore, and even island groups like Samoa), and partly because some countries have special requirements that may be better suited to a 2D map (Scotland, for example, has a map that shows its position in the UK, and its position in Europe). My thinking is that if we get consensus for continents, it's likely that many countries' articles will follow - I noticed when I was looking at Europe's map over at commons that a number of countries already exist in this style. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I reckon it's time! How's your SVG? i.e. would you be up for taking the Europe map and using it to create the others? I'll totally understand if you say no, and I'll fall back to my original plan of taking it as a request to the Image Workshop, but I figured since you're a "mappy" person and you're familiar with what's needed you'd be a good person to ask.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I may add an SVG (or updated PNG) for South America, but am noncommittal otherwise. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My preference is for SVGs - but I would strongly suggest talking it through first. Keep the other editors happy, and all that!

I'll try and swing by all relevant talk pages and check no one's voiced any opposition, but assuming everyone's happy I'll post a request at the Image Workshop tomorrow (it's late evening where I am now). Let me know if you produce or have an SVG for South America, and I'll omit it from the request.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the caution. I will try to produce an SVG of the map, but am currently having some technical issues. Nonetheless, given the tortured discussion on that talk page, I will nonetheless be boldly placing the other map -- whether PNG or SVG -- tomorrow (which will obviate the one currently in place), and initiating a new discussion. It's obvious that one cannot keep everyone happy all the time, and I have no intention to. You can also weigh in on that tomorrow too. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! I have no strong objection to having the graticule under the land, since I think it's clear from the surrounding land where the grids are. I'd weakly prefer them to be visible, for consistency with Europe (and Brazil), but it's too small a difference to worry about.

Likeminas should be happy with it (they've previously intimated that they're happy with the proposal) but I'd recommend linking to the SVG from the talk page, and getting them to formally agree - it keeps everything clean, and is something to point to earlier if someone else opposes (there'll be both you and Likeminas supporting, against one opposing - unless consensus shifts significantly).

Well, I'm slowly getting used to Inkscape, so will 'rectify' the graticule issue if need be. I believe that difference is insignificant for current purposes.

Actually, I believe the sole opponent -- if it's who I think it is -- has withdrawn from the project (see their talk page). No lost sleep here. Nonetheless, I will be initiating a section on the talk page AND placing the map in the article: if, say, 10 editors commented in support of IMO that horrid map with few supports, I would be more reluctant to do so. If a certain editor reverts, it is a clear demonstration of someone wanting to make a point. But, I genuinely think that there is no (or, at most, a very weak) consensus in support of the map now in place given the prior map's placement for more than a year. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers - and thanks again! Good work! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re: Your comment here, don't worry if you can't - other SVG artists will pick up the slack (I hope!) - though, of course, if you can do any it'll be gratefully appreciated! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Awesome work (just seen North America)! The original request I submitted has been moved to here - it might be worth you posting to mention that you've done North America (and if you do any others)? (I'd do it myself, but I'm about to fly out the door and wanted to say "thanks" first). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• More awesome work - thanks! I added a small request re: Antarctica - would it be possible to centre it on the South Pole? I have a feeling people are going to get confused if it isn't centred... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah - I'm probably seeing a problem where there isn't one ;-) It's probably worth leaving it for the time being, and seeing if anyone actually regards it as a problem. Sorry about the noise! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your change to the locator map of Serbia

You should be aware that there is active discussion about this map on Talk:Serbia, and therefore, you changes may be reverted if you fail to support them, particularly considering the map is currently being debated. Prodego ^talk 06:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations, recognized as a state of fifty countries. There are a lot of territory in the world this type and not mean that everyone should now make a new map.I'll put the map of Serbia, which should stand on this page, while Kosovo may become a member of UN,then I'll let administrators decide what to do.

How I see you're not an administrator..............--Boksi (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrators don't get to decide content issues by fiat (if we could, I would just do whatever I want). Consensus determines content issues, your opinion and Bosonic's opinion, and my opinion carry only the weight of their arguments, not the weight of our statuses. Prodego ^talk 06:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF

Perhaps you would be interested in designing maps for various other regions disputed states as well? While that other regions aren't marked isn't a valid argument not to mark Kosovo, those regions should probably be marked as well. If the map is designed it can be brought up on those article's talk pages. (In regards to this edit). If not it is no problem. Prodego ^talk 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested in doing so. I don't necessarily want to get embroiled in this or that, but it apparently comes with the territory. My current focus has been updating all the maps for Europe, and will move out from there, but multitask as needed ... time permitting. I already have a few ideas about the rendition of disputed territories in locator maps for Georgia and Moldova, perhaps even animated images (e.g. GIFs?) that show the full country in one frame, and alternate to exhibiting disputed territories in another. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd stay away from animation, it tends to be a bit tacky, which is why we don't really use it anywhere. Prodego ^talk 18:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Location_Antarctica.svg

I like what you did with this image. I was wondering if you would be able to give me a set of instructions on how to create a map like this.

Other than http://www.aquarius.geomar.de/omc/omc_intro.html and Inkscape, are any other websites or image editing software required?

Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Orthographic Maps

Thanks, I know the feeling if you are about to start on a project, wondering if someone else has already begun! Anyway, I hope to get the Americas one done today. Thanks for organising it, it makes much more sense!

(PS: As above, I was thinking of writing a tutorial on how to do these maps, they are increasingly popular!) --23230 ^talk 15:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 16:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

American Beaver

Please calm down.[1] Hesperian is only trying to clarify the record regarding a point that otherwise might not be apparent. I don't think anyone looking at the talk page history would interpret the current wording as an attack, although I agree that the earlier wording was unfortunate and has been considerably improved.[2] Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The map of Kosovo

Hi Bosonic dressing, I'm an editor of wikipedia in spanish. I do think that the correct solution to the map of Kosovo would be marking Serbia in light green, as Kosovo in the map of Serbia. I don't think that changing the colours (from green to grey) would be a better solution than keeping the same colour range in both maps. Thank you, Oikema

Hi; thanks for your comment. This was discussed HERE, but I'm open to feedback. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada article

One would hope that you have, indeed, ended the discussion (as you put it). There are some things that you said in your latest message on the Canada talk page that bother me, though, so I shall pursue them here. You said: "And, to be clear, I will not tolerate incivility: which means, if you continue to be ... unnecessarily 'cranky' as such, I will escalate."

First of all, what did I do that seemed to you "uncivil"? Please provide diffs. You have also referred to me as "unnecessarily cranky." I need some evidence of that as well. Secondly, you persist in stating that you "will not tolerate" certain actions by me (in the first instance, it was my edit, now it is my "incivility") and state that you "will escalate." This, to me, seems like a threat and is uncivil. When combined with personal attacks such as: "your edits were substandard" this adds up to the kind of behaviour that flies in the face of Wikipedia behavioral policies and the goal of collaborative editing. If you chose not to provide me with examples, and genuinely wish to discontinue the discussion, that will be fine, but please do not address me, (or any editor), with this sort of language again. Sunray (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your commentary has been read. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosovan passport

Hi Bosonic dressing, I would like you to remove the word Serbia from the Kosovan passport (passports gallery). OK, Kosovo is not a UNO member but it is an independent state. Kosovo is not the same as Taiwan. China and Taiwan are the same people. Taiwan (or RoC, Republic of China) wants to rappresent all the chinese people. Now Kosovo and serbia are different people. Kosovo wants only to be independent. Kosovo does not want to govern or to rappresent serbia. Kosovo and Taiwan are different cases. Remeber the Kosovo passaport is issued by the Kosovo Goverment. Nor the K. Government or the K. passport are recognized by Serbia. So the word "serbia" near Kosovo passport is weird. Thank you. --Alblefter (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

edits to South Asia

Please don't start an edit war on this page. Please use the talk page to discuss your edits with K Khokar and other editors. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Afd...

Good idea. The merge notice was not mine by the way. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

American in English...

Hi, American in English means from America as well, not only the United States, so in this context isn't ambiguous. When you talk about "American countries" you're obviously talking about America and not the US. The term "Pan-American" isn't necessary at all...--Danoasis (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In this context, and in English, it is arguably necessary. Per 'Americas', the primary sense of 'America' in English is in reference to the US, not the Americas. To say 'American countries' may give some the lopsided impression in English of US possessiveness. 'Pan-American' is unambiguous. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. Because "American" means from America(s) as well, and that is listed on dictionaries and in the same wikipedia article about "American", plus "America" also appears as the first entry in this wiki and in many dictionaries being a synonym of the Americas. In this context... "American countries" is well used, because it's obvious that these countries aren't part of the US. Furthermore the people really need to understand that there's another meaning for America and American besides the US sense, as well as the dictionaries show it.--Danoasis (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes. The use of 'American' to mean 'of the Americas' is not in dispute, but numerous reputable sources (e.g., Oxford citation in 'Americas' lead) indicate that it is more commonly associated with the United States in English. In these uses 'pan-American' is even less ambiguous, or 'x of the Americas'. Anyhow, this discussion isn't really going anywhere, since there are insignificant content issues, if any, of particular note. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gallery of passports

The article Gallery of passports has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a web host

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

pov contradictions

When I moved Kosovo, Taiwan etc. to disputed group you said how it's not important because we group per continents and disputed status is explained in notes. Then when I added Abkhazia and Transnistria it suddenly became important and you said how we can add only sovereign state passports. Are Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine etc. sovereign? I don't think so. Can they be used for travel? Yes they can but the Abkhazian passport can be used for travel as well so I don't see what is your point unless you would reformulate it to "I want to push for Kosovo agenda but I hate Abkhazia" which isn't an encyclopedic argument but would be at least honest and would save me from the spin in your contradictory ride.--Avala (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Read and responded to on template talk page. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Australia

Hey, thanks for throwing yourself into the fray to give your point about the "world's smallest continent and largest island" crap. This argument has been going on for months, on and off, and many have tried to revert this unsubstantiated and incorrect claim. That claim had been in the lead for weeks and I only came back to the article to cite it when I saw that it was changed. I noticed it has been moved to the Geography section with the word "invariably" added as a qualifier, but that is synonymous to "some people think" which is just a weasel way of retaining the claim and is against Wikipedia policies of verifiability. Obviously that article has been "captured" by a few people and, as they have stated, their permission is needed for any changes. I wish you good luck, cause I am done with all this. Fight a good fight! Gary Joseph (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took so long to get back. I agree that submitting the article for nomination would loosen some of these "ownership" issues. I had seriously considered placing a request for arbitration. But many others , like me, who had the same problem with the the claim on the article lead and those editors and the administrator who have captured the article, did nothing so I decided to do the same. By reading what some of those editors wrote, you can tell they have no knowledge of geography nor do they posses any critical thinking skills. So that claim, I am afraid, will stay buried in the article. But good work on your part. Wikipedia has too many people like them and needs more people like you!Gary Joseph (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)