User talk:E Pluribus Anthony

This user is on an extended wikibreak. Notes may or may not be answered. | E Pluribus Anthony | 08:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Maps

As far as I know, the only other real place without a location is New Caledonia. If you wanted to get into "places that don't exist", there's Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Puntland, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and Republic of China (Taiwan--it's the wrong color). Thanks!--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a good 1, hombre

Take care of yourself and of the things in life that really do matter. =} //Big Adamsky 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, because I myself was on a vacation from WP and just came back to check out a few of the latest developments. ;] //Big Adamsky 07:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What's "TY" mean, btw?

Thanks for voting at TV conventions

I know that you are wikibreak and have been busy, but thanks for keeping up. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 08:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your insights would also be appreciated at the follow-up discussion when you have a chance. Particularly given your vote at the poll [1]. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

FYROM abbreviation

You might want to take a look at the Macedonia disambiguation page too, where somebody has removed the common FYROM abbreviation.--Theathenae 10:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination)

Despite the overwhelming support for keeping the list in article namespace, the above relisting was closed early. At Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual place_names, the deletion is being reviewed once more (to restore the list from Wikipedia to article namespace (it's currently at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names). -- User:Docu

East Africa

It was alluded by the British colonialist, for nearly a century, that East Africa is mererly Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania. Other East Africans had to wait for wikipedia for redemption. Thank you for giving the truth.--Ezeu 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

you have a message!

Recent polls

Have you seen this poll? It almost blew my mind. Do you consider it possible for the NDP to gain a minority government in the next elections, with the right campaign? The prospect seems too good to be true... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Scacivic2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Scacivic2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 21:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin?

Would you like for me to nominate you for adminship? I think you would be a great canidate at you would most likely pass. Want to? Moe ε 21:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Interest in starting a Classical Geography Wikiproject

I am looking to drum up interest and found the former states wikiproject and it seems moribund, but if classical geography is up your alley, let me know. Carlossuarez46 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Global cities

DearE Pluribus Anthony,

I clearly mentioned reasons to delete table for the above mentioned article. Besides redudant and confusing, table shows poor stats.

Regards Cloretti2 02:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok..just you guys must correct information such as skycrapers in S Paulo or population of Buenos Aires. Not just a mere consensus (between 4 or 5 people) gives legitimacy to such wrong info.

Cloretti2 02:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I recognized you reestablish just criteria. Again sorry Cloretti2 02:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely and I'll be more careful next time. Sorry and it was very nice to talk to you Cloretti2 02:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[2]

Thank you! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I'm on a wikibreak of sorts ... ha!

I've also started to tweak the intros and content for the various articles, starting (for now) with the various admiral articles. I've also been adding real-world links and (what I think) are relevant See also links/sxns to each of them; I got into a bit of a pissing match regarding Fleet Admiral (Star Trek) and may yet revise it, but my work isn't done. :)

In any event, thanks for your hard work on giving these rank articles the treatments and structure they deserve. (As well, I hope your surgery was trouble free.) Hailing freqencies open whenever you need 'em, but closed for now. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Surgery went ok (I am not dead so thats good :P).

There is more room for improvement, I encourage you to stick around.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks...

Thanks loads for fixing the header format on the GDP page, I tried for ten minutes anf it wouldnt work for me. thanks again. Nmpenguin 20:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

howdy, I decided to not clutter your page too much and make a small addendum on this topic... Would you support the initiation of a vote on the countries talk page to decide the gdp etc. matter? if you feel as though there should be other org's (other than IMF, World Bank, and factbook) tell me and I shall go ahead and start it. thanks again for the former. Nmpenguin 00:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I haved added the poll to the countries page, make alterations as you see fit. Nmpenguin 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Where on a country page would suppose to insert a link for the poll? Nmpenguin 03:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, I am going to go ahead and "close" the vote on which source to use for country pages. The factbook, not counting my vote, had a 2-1 lead, thus 67% I believe that allows for progression. I intend to encourage cmts. on the discussion bit. Thanks again. Nmpenguin 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I extended it until 8 March 12:00 UTCNmpenguin 01:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I have seemed a bit...direct, but my focus has been the whole countries section, and wanted to get on with it, but a few extra days during the week isnt too bad :) Nmpenguin 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert of Klingon starships

May I enquire as to why you reverted Klingon starships? Your edit summary was: limit entries to canon/semi-canon classes. What exactly is a canon class And why are you limiting it to that? I'm not going to offend you by reverting the work - unless we both agree that's best. Thank you. Computerjoe 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I was aware of the Wikiproject guidelines. Computerjoe 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

RFAR

I filed a request for arbitration for the naming conventions of the Macedonia related articles: Wikipedia:RFAR#Macedonia_naming_dispute. I have listed you as a party involved. Bitola 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gomery Report reference

Hey E Pluribus Anthony,

Can you please comment on the inclusion of the Gomery Report reference. It's becoming pretty silly. The statement is in the article, thus in needs a reference. For anyone who is not Canadian, the sponsorship program or the allegations of illegal actions are not common knowlegde, and Wikipedia:Verifiability states it needs to be referenced. Thanks -- Jeff3000 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande - Western Europe

Hi, I want to ask your opinion about the current shape of the article Western Europe. Give me your honest opinion and feel free to give me any proposals of improvement. If I agree with them or not, is another matter. Please reply on the talkpage of the article, so that other users can read it and learn form it. Thanks Flamarande 09:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

RoI vote

Apologies for reformatting - I did so for the sake of clarity, but I didn't read the directions in the prior section regarding negative votes. I had followed the crowd in placing negative votes tbh! --Mal 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Option 7 is now the clear winner the voting should close as per Voting will continue to 28 February 2006 23:59 UTC, will you close it cause you seem in charge Fabhcún 08:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

country infobox

Hi anthony, I added an option for using a range for the country infobox at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries.. it might not look as neat as the others but at least it would be NPOV -- Astrokey44|talk 11:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Svalbard

Hey EPA. Still on wiki-break? Your mediation/opinion would be greatly appreciated in the minor revert war unfolding at Svalbard. The question is basically whether to include an article link and a category that helps explain matters of international law, (which I advocate). Thanks! PS: I haven't gotten around to participating in your standardization vote for the country infoboxes yet. But shall! //Big Adamsky 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

German is non sequitur for an article/entity whose main languages are English and French

The reson I put the German name in is largely becuase the name 'Brunswick' is an Anglisation of the German name 'Braunschwieg.'Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

If so many Canadians are educated biliungualy (English and French), how many of then also study a "non sequitur" language. zB(e.g.) do all French Canadians, who speak English as a second language and at a native like level, also study a third, if so, how likely is it to be Deutsch (German)? I'll ask the same about (sorry, aboat/abawt (and not 'aboot')) Anglophone Canadians.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

I am so sorry: I did not make any assumptions, I was asking an important question, do you know the answer?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

Unfotunately, Pierre Elliott Trudeau is dead, so I can't exactly *consult* him.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

The

Hi Anthony, It will no doubt come as no surprise that I disagree with your removal of the "the" before the "Northwest Territories" in the Provinces and territories of Canada article. Rather than engaging in a silly edit war, I have started a discussion on this issue at Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion to get input from other Canadian editors and hopefully resolve the issue through consensus. See you there. :-) Luigizanasi 07:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Toronto

You erased population projections that were researched and noted that they would be better in Demographics of Toronto because of TMI (not a Wiki policy)...then you didn't move them! Is it not better to leave them if you are not going to do the correction?

I wasn't taking offense to the edit...what I find odd/sad is that you didn't take that work to what you considered the appropriate page...you just reverted and forgot it...if we all do that we will be wiping out valuable research done by Wikipedians...I guess I could remind you that Wiki also tells people "# Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUXX0RZ", or someone changing "6+5*2=16" to "6+5*2=17"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk." Anyway...no need for a pissing match...I just don't understand why you would erase something that you think is valuable but misplaced...and then not put it in the right place.

I have moved it, at your suggestion, to the Demographics of Toronto page. My point was and is that Wiki encourages editors to NOT erase good information but to move it to the appropriate place or leave it alone. You erased perfectly good info without putting it to the page you believed it belonged on. If you are concerned about the quality of editing by newbies (which you did notice on my user page right...since I state it in my first infobox) perhaps a talk would have been appropriate instead of a complete revert of quality info. Now we have both had our last word. Thanks for the tips but I think you could handle things better. KsprayDad 04:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse you?

You undid my star trek moves and commented out my change on Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek without explaining why on the talk page or my talk page. If you bothered to check the authorship of said convention and comments on the talk page you will find I made them and am fully aware of them.

Considering my point raised in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Naming Conventions II was never countered then you have some explaining to do (and some page moving). I look forward to your comments, just pick a talk page... Cburnett 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Guantánamo

I voted to support the move. This is a very good idea, and congratulations to you for pursuing it. See you around! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Please take a look at the Republic of Macedonia talk page if you can. Bitola 17:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from the United Federation of Planets

Since you are already working with me on the transformation of Template:ST character -> Template:Star Trek character I was wondering if you could help me with these: [3] --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As before, I'm glad to help; I'm on a wikibreak of sorts so I promise nothing ... and I still have to peruse the remaining rank articles!  ;)

My current efforts have focused on adding and copyediting details for recently converted articles (e.g. lower case; upper case for proper nouns only) and ranks for various characters: I believe it important that the infobox not merely exhibit their most recent rank, but other major ones depicted on screen (see Geordi La Forge for example) which visitors may be familiar with. This won't be an issue for some characters (e.g., Data, Picard).

As well, I tweaked the template earlier to account for postings. I'm including only those postings depicted on-screen ... take a glance at Riker (without prior postings). Perhaps we can reduce the font size within the infobox/template (80%) so that it will accommodate for all the detail more efficiently? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Showing all ranks may be problematic with characters that promoted from ensign to captain or even admiral. Just talking about their promotions should be fine since we have an article that shows promotions: List of Starfleet officers. (article needs some work for insignia)

One problematic rank is of the rank of Hoshi Sato. She left starfleet with the rank Lutenant Commander though we do not have a verifiable insignia for that.

I can reduce the text size to 80%, no problem.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. I don't think including multiple (major) ranks will be problematic: reducing the font size a wee-bit (even to 75%) will help. I guess I have difficulties in including only one rank when, amidst incessant reruns, the various characters spent significant chunks of time at other grades ... save Harry Kim. :)

By the way, I think the List of Starfleet officers – or another – should be organised by officer (renamed List of Starfleet officers by rank?), not by rank. ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I just feel showing ranks like that is excessive as every character started out as ensign up to the last rank...

I renamed the article as you asked. :)

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the resizing. Remember: I'm not advocating for including every rank, only those portrayed on-screen and within the usual timeframe of the appropriate production (i.e., excluding flashbacks, alternate stuff, and one-offs). I mean, everyone of the TNG main officers started out (presumably) as Ensigns, but I'm only listing the ranks portrayed by characters during and after that run and seen. That's why some may be simple, but some like La Forge will have more entries. Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think its excesive but I dont really have a reason to object. However, how about displaying what you want on the article I just cited (List of Starfleet officers)? Or how about both? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again; is there any way to reduce the font (to equal sixe) of the left column text? In any event, I think we'll be OK. The most cumbersome ones to date have actually been either La Forge (#) or Worf (who also served on a Klingon vessel during the course of the Klingon Civil War) ... and these look OK, right? If it's unworkable, I'll defer and restore to the 'current' rank.

As for specifics regarding the other list of officers, I'll provide additional details soon. I was thinking about an alphabetical (surname) listing/table with rank changes/episodes and postings to boot. Make sense? I'll work on something ... but can't just yet. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Individual characters already have that. I want List of Starfleet officers to display the rank insignias and perhaps episodes and postings etc... Seems like you'll have your hands full with that. :)

I am more concerned with movie ranks for TOS chars.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the first statement means: some articles have that information, but some do not (at least clearly). Also (a minor point), some pix indicate(d) one rank, while their 'current' rank is another.

I don't think the TOS ranks will be any more problematic than TNG – Spock for instance: Lt. Cmr., Cmdr., Capt., Ambassador (Admiral unseen, if at all) ... Ent, Ent-A, Romulus (unauthorised)

I know I'll have my hands full, that's why I can't get to it just yet! :) I'll start off with TNG main officer ranks (based on the other list) and work from there. And from then, perhaps, I'll nix the extra ranks in the infobox. In any event, thanks for your work and help. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh Like Uhura having two types of insignias which would take a decent amount of space. Current rank is generaly set by movies. After all almost the entier crew dies in an average movie :P

TNG is easier to follow so thats logical.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in this?

Take a look at WikiProject Psephology, feel free to participate (I know you're technically on a wikibreak... ;)), and to spread the word. ;) Cheers, —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Yes, I'm interested; I'll sign up shortly. One suggestion: I seriously recommend renaming it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections, ...Voting, or the like. I did learn a new word today (and this coming from someone who has been accused of verbosity) but the current title/term is too esoteric and might act as a deterrent for participation. TTYL! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I liked psephology in particular because it easily encompasses everything from elections over politicians to referenda, while all of the others are not as all-encompassing... Mh. I'll think about it. Thanks! Take care, —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

global cities

How can Adelaide be considered more of a Global city than Perth?

Catholicism

Yes, "Catholicism" beats out "catholicty" in Google because "Catholicism" refers to the Catholic Church! You know, the one that the Pope is head of. Last time I checked, 94 of the top 100 Google hits for "Catholicism" refer to that Church of which the Pope is head. You are correct that "Catholicism" is unambiguous, but the article we have at Catholicism doesn't reflect that reality at all. It is an extended discussion that we already have elsewhere at Catholic and One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. --Hyphen5 12:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

World Regions

Few days ago I created an article called "World Regions" the point is that today when I opened it to work on it I see this message saying that my article could be eliminated because there is already 2 or 3 articles about the same subject something that is not true, there might be some articles like "americas(terminology)" and "continents" but there is not an article that talks about the regions of the world, It's true I made a mistake putting information about continents, america, etc. because It's not what the title really is about, but I was just trying to introduce the idea of world regions because I'm still working on it and yeah thanks for the advice, I'll take that information off that has nothing to be with title.

So please don't eliminate this article, I just have to make the proper corrections.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various unseen or stub Star Trek Classes

You may want to vote here --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion

I created for all the commonwealth realms articles on the monarch of. See e.g. Monarch of Belize. I did this because every country has a Politics of series. In this series allways a head of state article is included. It helps to find your way quickly. It would be nice if these Monarchs of XX could be enlarged, but at the moment this is what I can offer. Now it is proposed to delete these articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monarch of Jamaica. Because of the consistency of the Politics of series, I oppose the deletion of these articles. Could you give your opinion? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

question on entrance for country articles

hey Anthony, how are you? remember the discussion we had on how to open the article on countries? What do you think, should we close the debate now, or even call a vote? let me know, cheers... Gryffindor 14:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I remember you mentioning it, but we haven't really talked since quite a while. Ok, well I'll make maybe one more motion, write the new guideline down (feeback obviously appreciated) and then I think we can send this baby off... Gryffindor 14:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work

South Asia and Indian subcontinent articles look great. Nice job Anthony. --Spartian 03:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done, as far as Cyprus article is concerned:). The word Eurasian (which apparently i had not thought of...) makes sense, as long as the rest of the article is well worded and sourced. but there is something else that has to be mentioned in the 1st paragraph: the distance from Greece. since it is a eurasian island, we have to mention the closest european country,don't u think? --Hectorian 04:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As for noting Greece in the intro, no: Eurasia is explicit and sufficient. Actually, I recommend moving all the specific distance details (save general reference to closest territory, Turkey), which frankly clutter the intro, to the geography section instead where distances to Turkey, Syria, and (if necessary) Greece can be expanded upon. And, arguably, Turkey is the closest European country given that Rumelia/Trakya is north and west of the Bosporus/Dardanelles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

oh!i saw your edit by chance, cause i'm not watching your page and i did not expect that u would reply here...Anyway...i think we should mention all the distance details in the geography section. there is a map, readers can see which is the closest country geographically. and, arguably, u cannot say that a country is in europe (geographically speaking), since only 3% of its territory is in the european continent. cause in the same way u should say that Greece is in asia, since c.4% of its territory (eastern aegean islands and the Dodecanese) is in asia geographically speaking(again). --Hectorian 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Great; I'll move the details shortly. Moreover, your analysis is somewhat off. Russia (whose area is mostly in Asia, yet most Russians live in Europe), Egypt, Panama, Indonesia, and a smattering of other territories are variably reckoned in one or more continents but usually categorised in one or the other more for convenience (e.g., the UN scheme for geographic subregions assigns both Cyprus and Turkey to Western Asia). The fact that Rumelia/Trakya of Turkey is located on what is generally reckoned to be the European mainland doesn't obviate that (and I'm not debating that most of Turkey is in Asia, which (as above) it obviously is). On the other end of it, the Aegean islands are in a nether region (a body of water) By virtue of being Greek (geopolitically), they are of Europe ... or (less commonly) they are of Asia (many of the islands are scant kilometres from the Asian mainland). Throughout, however, they are all unquestionably in Eurasia. :) That's NPOV ... and to deny that as it applies to Cyprus/Turkey, etc. (given the above) is biased.

Essentially, there's little need to throw in the kitchen sink when describing the location of Cyprus and how far it is from any of Rhodes, Peloponesse, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. (especially in the intro) if the topic is treated equitably, but I'm not resistant to adding said details and moving them to the geo sxn of the article as proposed (or eleswhere). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Great!now i am watching your page,that's why i saw the comment so soon:p. that's good in moving the details, athough not all, as i was expecting u would...!cause,especailly due to the greco-turkish relations and POVs, mentioning only turkey would create problems and disputes. btw,the examples that u are mentioning are not the same with the case of turkey...we cannot split the areas so easily...see for example Imvros and Tenedos. if we take things politically only, we are not making a good job...btw, the russians mostly live in european territory, but most of the turks in asian:) --Hectorian 05:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

i had many 'edit conficts' till i finally made it to edit my comment:p...u had been re-wording your edits.:) --Hectorian 05:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response (sorry for the editing difficulties; I'm a perfectonist of sorts and need to learn to use the preview feature more).

I've acknowledged that the areas are not easy to split (hence my positioning/comments) ... nor should we if possible. I've also cited other examples since nothing is clear-cut. Essentially: notation of distance is a quantifiable element of geography, not of sociopolitical influence or heritage that is dealt with aptly elsewhere in the article. Geographically, Cyprus is closest to Turkey: that is completely appropriate in the lead; however, ref merely to the eastern Mediterranean is sufficient. And all of these details can be included in the appropriate subarticle.

My point is this: don't make assumptions beyond those required for the issue ... and adding details of Cypriot proximity to everything around it in the intro is excessive, hence the reasoning to move some details down. And it only becomes an issue if one let's it bother them ... not me. And I don't think I can comment beyond that. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

i will comment on all the things that u said during the day...it is 8 o'clock here and i have things to do.Cheers...and have a nice day:) --Hectorian 05:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK; I'm unsure more discussion/commentary regarding this is necessary ... just remember WP:NPOV. And don't worry, I'll (continue to) make edits to the Cyprus article that equitably deal with this. You have a nice day, too. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok.more discussion is unecessary indeed. so,keep up doing similar edits in Cyprus, always NPOV. Cheers! --Hectorian 18:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Maps of Canada

Hi!

First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for your incredibly beautiful maps! I uploaded two of them, Map Canada political-geo.png and Canada map-political.png to the Wikimedia Commons (Image:Geopolitical map of Canada.png and Image:Political map of Canada.png. I just wonder, why don't you upload these maps to the Commons yourself in the first place?

Secondly, I'd like to know which font you've used in these maps. I'd like to translate the geographical names into Finnish and use the same font.

Thank you!

Anchjo 18:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your praise. I usually upload images to Wikipedia more for ease, but I should make more of a habit to upload them to the commons instead. If you've also uploaded them to the commons, you might want to add links for each to the other.

Similarly, I used CorelDraw to draw/adapt the maps and the Humanst 777 font family for text on them. And while I'm not fluent in Finnish, it might be easier for me to adapt the map for your purpose; this would take me a while, though. Make sense? Thanks again. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could send me the CorelDraw files of these maps? Then I could change the names myself. Alternatively, you could send me the maps without the geographical names so that it'd be easy for me to add the Finnish names without having to touch the map itself (that'd be nasty). The first alternative would naturally be easier for me. My e-mail address is antti[dot]levasaari[at]gmail[dot]com.

OR: If you want to, you could change the names yourself (the translations can be found @ User:Anchjo/Canada). That'd be quite much work for you so I don't mind doing that myself if I only get the original CorelDraw files :) If you want to do it yourself and need to hyphenate compound words, please split the words before salmi, lahti, territoriot, järvi and meri. For example:

1. Hudsonin-
   lahti
2. Michigan-
   järvi

Anchjo 14:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - March 2006
Project news An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page. The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain. Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created. An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway. The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.	From the Coordinators Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent

You have really done a nice job. Congrats. I wanted to something, but could not do. Let me see if I can do something. --Bhadani 16:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You are doing a great service in building the sum total of human knowledge by giving perspectives to such matters. Thanks again. --Bhadani 17:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Map of Scandinavia

Hello EPA! I hope you are well in life as on WP. At this time I would like to ask you to consider creating an overview map as per this request, similar to the one made for Central Asia and Central Africa. It would be much appreciated! :) // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 18:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Allrightie, I look forward to seeing what you will come up with! As for your wikiproject for oceans and seas, I am very interested in participating and contributing. I think the articles on straits, mediterranean seas, marginal seas and territorial waters will be useful to the project. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 17:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Anthony, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA, I made it! The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. I am very humbled by your vote and grateful. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 17:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

country leads

yes sir, lots of work to do, give me moment, ok? Gryffindor 17:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

hi E Pluribus Anthony, well I finally placed the proposal, I'll post it here for you as well, maybe could use some polish. Hope it works, cheers!

The country introduction reads: Xxxxx, officially the Yyyyyy of Xxxx (Republic of Xxxxx, or Kingdom of Xxxxxx, etc.), is a country located on the Xxxxx of Xxxx. It shares borders with Xxxx to the east, etc. For example the introduction to France should read: "France (pronounced /fʀɑ̃s/ in French), officially the French Republic (French: République française, pronounced /ʀepyblik fʀɑ̃sɛz/), is a country...."

Exceptions: If the official name and the most common name are synonymous, the entry is left with only one name, as is the case in the articles United States, United Kingdom, Romania, Mongolia, etc. For example: "The United States of America is a federal republic situated primarily in North America." or "Romania (Romanian: România /ro.mɨ'ni.a/) is a country in Central Europe." In cases where there is a thorough explanation of the official name, the official name in the lead sentence may be dropped, as long as it is explained later. This exception is illustrated in the article Canada.

Gryffindor 20:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia

May i ask u what are u doing in the article Republic of Macedonia? u have changed it many times the past 2 days, although in no case there was a consensus. i reverted it to your previous version before, and u changed it right after...I am confused...what is your opinion on the matter? --Hectorian 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Who am I?I have clearly stated my thoughts in the talk page of that article, regarding the mentioning of the name 'FYROM' in the first paragraph, because it is a name used officially by countries and organisations and the only name accepted by the UN. it's not a matter of biased or not editors, it is just a matter that cannot be denied: this country is officially recognised by two names (and thus both should be mentioned in the beginning). and although, as u said, there was no consensus about that in the talk page (and personally,i do not believe there will be) u changed the page twice today without giving any single explanation. on the contrary, it seems that u edit according to your own POV, which is changing during the day. Ή μήπως κάνω λάθος; --Hectorian 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never been uncivil, nor i will be now. so, none of my opinions for u were like that.

Have in mind that it is not only the UN and Greece that recognise the state as FYROM. as for the reason that such an issue had not arisen so far, it is because other issues had been discussed in the talk page(as u can see yourself)-it was not a result of consensus.

I am not lecturing u! i had said that u made a good and NPOV job in Cyprus, but here u seem unstable. i am not asking u to adopt the greek POV (if i was expressing the greek POV, i would ask the article to be renamed 'FYROM'), but i am also saying when u ommitt this term from the first paragraph, u express the 'Macedonian' POV (no mentioning of that name at all in the beginning). so, in conclusion, all i am asking is NPOV and not blind reverts according to what was last said in the talk page. (Do not see my msgs as a conflict with u...it is an attempt to reach consensus,if possible) --Hectorian 18:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In that sense, the other version would be provocative for the users who would like only the term 'FYROM' to be mentioned. but mentioning both we'll reach NPOV. the fact that there is an article about the naming dispute, does not mean that there should be no referense here. noone says to analyse the whole problem here...but the 2nd name has to be mentioned, simply cause it is as valid and used as the 1st one (and this is undisputable). i am not aware if the previous status quo was agreeable and by whom, but what u say that it is sufficient and preferred contranticts your previous edits [4]. anyway, hope that u will contribute in solving the matter and not in keeping a not agreed version. --Hectorian 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not promulgating ignorance as a defence for myself(!), although i had not taken part that discussion. it seems that this version does not work (and i was not the one who brought the matter into existance). it seems that the case will be rediscussed, and this discussion may provide a newer version. i also think that no further discussion is needed here. Regards --Hectorian 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi!nice job E Pluribus Anthony!i took a look at it and i'll be waiting till u post it in the respective page. just one thing: should it be Previous Version - Recent Version, instead of Status quo - Recent Version? --Hectorian 23:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can intrude myself in a discussion to which I've not been invited ;-), I wanted to add that after looking the poll you proposed, I have to object that closing it on April 1 is far to late in my view; generally polls are kept open from seven to ten days, and I don't see any reasons for keeping it open after that. Also, regarding the poll, the third version, or the second amended, could remove the five letters in parenthesis - FYROM; I've noted that Macedonians are particularly hostile to those, and their removal wouldn't change the text, while it would be a conciliatory move. --Aldux 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I see plenty of reason for a longer poll: given the ongoing, divisive nature of the topic, an extended period will only allow for added input and validate or reaffirm a potential course of action. Similar Wp country polls have transpired over similarly lengthy periods for that very reason (e.g., Talk:Republic of Ireland, Talk:Georgia). Moreover, additional options can be placed once the poll commences: the two options noted are the ones which have precipitated recent actions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the phrase 'Status quo version' is a bit provocative (do i have to say that i am not accusing u, but the phrase?:)...), cause it implies that the previous version was an agreed version. according to what i have read in the archives of the talk page, only one greek(possibly) user had taken part in that discussion. Hence, i think that two terms of equal weight and importance (previous-recent) should be used. each version reflects the derires and rights of the two 'opposing' groups of editors and i do not think we should promote one of them with the validity of a latin term like status quo (i.e. 'neutrality' or 'equal presentation'). what do u think? about the rest, i think that are all well presented. of course, noone should count just on me, since i bet there will be objections by other greek or 'macedonian' users. --Hectorian 00:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Είχα υποθέσει ότι είσαι Έλληνας, since u write the name of Toronto in greek as well! i think that now it seems accurate, since the current version is indeed a brief one. and it will be nice to see editors, notable for their neutral edits, taking part in this. I believe, Aldux will have much to offer in the issue. Would u mind if i also requested feedback from other-non Greek-editors? i have added the words 'the term' in the poll u devised, cause i've seen 'macedonian' editors objecting that it is not a name. hope it's ok. i am really curious to see what the other, involved or not, users will have to say about this poll. it seems that today, since the article is locked, only a few editors bothered to discuss about it (most of the times been driven away from the subject). --Hectorian 00:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok,well done! as far as i am concern, i do not think that anything has to be changed in your versions. i will wait for a while to see if anyone else has any short of objections and then i will vote exactly as i have said. i really feel agony if the other involved users will be willing enough to vote, cause i have the suspicion that some of them are deliberately avoiding to express their views, in an attempt to 'sabotage' any possible compromise. Regards --Hectorian 01:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome! This is the only way to solve the dispute in wikipedia level, hoping that all the involved parties will participate. --Hectorian 01:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Restless natives

Wassup. Yes, I am fully aware of their restlessness, and quite frankly, I am fed up with trying to put some structure and consistency into the articles on FYROM, Northern Cyprus and related topics =[ . I did of course have a look at your three propositions, and none looks wrong to me. As a rule of thumb, though, it isn't very "reader friendy" to go into details in the very first paragraphs. On the other hand - as I have come to realize - putting all the facts and perspectives right-up-front-in-the-very-first-sentence-smack-in-your-face-where-you-can't-miss-it is often regarded as a reasonable compromise solution. And so my answer is this: either of your three versions works just fine, but the more info you can cram into the lead section, the less vulnerable it will be to subsequent massive rewrites. (Dunno if this was helpful). PS: Aren't you supposed to be busy with real life projects? =P // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 18:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject:Oceans

As you might already suspect, physical geography is not my core field of knowledge/interest. This said, I do prefer restricting the scope of this nascent project to oceans and seas, thus excluding inland bodies of water and associated watersheds (cf. Oceanography vs. Hydrology). BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 19:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Template Europe

Why are u changing the template?the article of the country is titled 'Republic of Macedonia'. that's the name that should be used here. the examples u gave before about UK,France etc, are irrelevant, since these countries' names in the template are exactly as their articles' title. --Hectorian 01:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute over the name of Ireland(and it is more than possible that there never will be one). Since the article about FYROM is titled as Republic of Macedonia at the moment, this is the name to be used in the templates. see People's Republic of China in the articles and templates that have to do with Asia. as long as the name China is disputed among POC and Taiwan, noone uses it for one of them in the templates. RoM should not be treated differently concerning its name. it will have to follow the naming conditions that exist in the other countries whose name is disputed. --Hectorian 02:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No do not restore the prior version. i have given u an equivelent example over a naming dispute concerning another country. u gave me a reduntant example about a country (Ireland) whose name was never disputed. --Hectorian 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, restore to your prior version, but knowing that it is u who pushes POV blindly, not me. ROC rejects the usage of the name China by PRC and vice versa. the example of Ireland is simply irrelevant, since neither Northern Ireland nor the UK nor any other sigle country in the world objects in the usage of that name by the government of Dublin. Hence, the Republic of Ireland may be simply be called Ireland. I reserve my right to restore the version when i will consider it appropriate. --Hectorian 02:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose u will post the same message in the Greek users' talk pages as well, and also in Greece, Thessaloniki,et cetera articles...Right? --Hectorian 03:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

POLL for RoM/FYROM

Can you please comment on this?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Consesual Wikipedia ?

Hi. What do you think about the POOL for [RoM/FYROM].Tell me is this a consensual wikipedia where every POV is respected. It is an article about my land and my people and someone is making a game of controling the free will of expresing , I do not understand the greek atitude of renaming us. Every people has choosed its own name, the origin of the name is of no importancee as long as the filings are included. In this vote there is no consensus .There are more greek wikipedians than us, Macedonians (fact), and most of them read not what is written, they just vote. This vote should be stoped, and the naming dispute should be in the history and foreign relations articles of RoM and Greece, not in the introduction."Can we put in the Greek introduction sometning similar in order of the controversial teory about mmMacedonia or just we are the problem makers, the are the rigt ones". thanx --Vlatko 08:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be nice if I did it myself, since you are the one who introduced this poll, so please erase the votes of:

Filip_M (talk · contribs · block log), 2 edits (the vote and an add. to its comment, Option 1).

69.158.65.225 (talk · contribs · block log) (anon, signed as "Opa" in Option 4)

Anelia200 (talk · contribs · block log) 2 edits (usertalk and vote, Option 1)

If I don't need to do that anymore, coz there's an automated check or something, just tell me.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also check FoxyNet (talk · contribs · block log) (option 1).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 18:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw u deleted the votes of user Kamikazi2. well, according to the rules of the poll, u had to do it. but also u have to delete the votes of user User:Realek (his inception date: 12 March 2006) . Regards --Hectorian 20:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Bjankuloski06en, he/she joined on 13 March. --Hectorian 21:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"

Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Country subdivisions

need your help, kind of urgent, someone wants to split the cats and articles of "subdivisons of XY" to "Administatrive divisions of some countries" and "Political divisions of some other countries".

could you maybe vote on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4#Category:Subdivisions_by_country_to_Category:Political_divisions_by_country (take care, there are actually three votes)

IMO the thing should be taken with more care and discussed on the project page

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms

first. It is really is mass rename, since it not only involves the cats and subcates but also lots of articles. As Lorenz pointed out the most important seems to be that we find clear definitions of what the terms mean. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)