User talk:Aotearoa/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Aotearoa/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 20:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish money images

Please don't remove {{money}} - untagging images makes them auto-deletable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podstawowa różnica między pl a en wiki jest że ta druga dopuszcza fair use. Dlatego też wizerunki pieniędzy mogą tu zostać. Bądź więc łaskaw się zrewertować.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powtórzę: to nie jest pl-wiki. Na pl-wiki nie stosujemy fair use, bo polskie prawo nie dopuszcza takiej formy 'obchodzenia' praw autorskich, ale na en-wiki fair use jest dopuszczalne (choć nie rekomendowane). Zacytuję: fair use dopuszcza for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work. Nie ma znaczenia jak bardzo restrykcyjne są prawa autorskie NBP - fair use pozwala nam użyć ich obrazów na en-wiki. Poza tym, od strony prodecuralnej najpierw powinno się przedystkutować kasowanie tagów a potem je wykonać - bo jak bot skasuje obrazki a zdecydujemy się, że jednak ja miałem rację, to będzie roboty kilka razy tyle niż jeśli ty masz rację.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dzieki - to nie jest czepianie, tylko wspolna praca :) Mysle, ze obecne rozwiazanie jest ok.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zerknij na Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Polish_money.2C_NBP_and_fair_use - ciekawy argument się pojawił. A tak ogólnie to zapraszam na nasz noticeboard - warto go 'watchować' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zerknij na Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Polish_money.2C_NBP_and_fair_use, kolejny argument. Mieciu K 21:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino map

Cześć! I don't want to be cheeky, but I just saw that there's a misspelling on your San Marino map. Instead of Castello di Featano it should read Castello di Faetano, i.e. the a and the e should swap places. Regards, nepTune 17:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naypyidaw

Sorry, but I just keep noticing you revert the MLC transcription of the Burmese name of "Naypyidaw". The spelling is meant to awkward, because the MLCTS system emphasises orthography over pronunciation. "Nay pyi daw", as you edited, is not the correct transcription. Hintha 07:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Changing the Land Area of POLAND

I agree with someone who posted the area of 312685 sq km earlier today. I went to see both sources mentioned by you User:Aotearoa as well as the TABLICE by Central Statistical Office of Poland (see references; Page 1)) and I have to conclude that we should consider the land are of Poland as 312685 sq km! Did you ever see any country's area posted in any media that would include external sea or ocean area! Please take a look around the internet and you will never see such things posted anywhere! Even though the area of Poland including the external sea is 322575 sq km, the land area including inland sea area in only 312685 sq km and this number should be posted to not confuse other users! Please come to Talk:Poland section to discuss this further. Once again, please do not confuse readers with your version of information (322575 sq km). The Central Statistical Office posted the total land area of POLAND on many of their documents as 312685 sq km. Do not change the land area with your info! The area posted now, 312685 sq km, is the correct total land area referenced here by 3 sources and there are many more sources to support this fact out there! Thanks! --Thomaspca 20:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you continue to vandalize the English version of the introduction section of POLAND. The changes that you make do not make any sense, they confuse people, and they do not look good! I redesigned the Introduction part and the Culture section of POLAND and now they still look good but I am not sure for how long the sections will stay that way. Unfortunately, due to the constant vandalism by you and others, I decided that all of the improvements are not worth my valuable time that is why I wont do them anymore! DOWIDZENIA! --Thomaspca 19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Aotearoa/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Melekeok, Palau

Hi there, I saw that you added a portion of a topographic map showing Melekoek, which is the new capital of Palau. Where did you find that map (URL)? Perhaps you have to show a larger piece of the original map to cover all of Melekeok State, since some of the villages (added by me today) don't show. Lake Ngardok doesn't seem to show either, but it would have to show on a map of such detail, covering almost 5 out of Melekeoks 28 km².--Ratzer 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to my talk page

While I appreciate your concern and comments about my maps of the Powiaty of Poland, I must inform you that any mistakes are a direct reflection to the Polish government website that I obtained the maps from. Also, you claim that there are "50 mistakes" but you offer no examples. Suffice to say, I would appreciate it that, instead of criticism, next time you provide examples where there are mistakes that need to be addressed. Otherwise you are simply not contributing in good faith. Rarelibra 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Frolik Island

An editor has nominated Frolik Island, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frolik Island and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move and replace with completely different content an article under deletion discussion as it makes things more complicated. I've now restored the latest version of Oroluk Island without the previous edit history. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik or Persian?

You have corrected just one instance of Persian to Tajik in the article Tajikistan. There are other instances in the same article and in a host of other Tajikistan-related articles. Please see the corresponding discussion section Tajik or Persian on Talk:Tajikistan. It would be great if you could deal systematically and authoritatively with the whole issue of "Tajik versus Persian" to ensure uniformity and consistency. I am not qualified to do this, but the problem is obviously there. Proper references to the correct usage should be supplied to prevent edit wars on this emotionally charged issue. --Zlerman (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Antilles

The websites are out of date. Here's one source. I'll see if I can't find something in the Amigoe archives as well. It was a big deal when it happened, because many of our Spanish speaking residents took it as an insult that of the four commonly spoken languages, Spanish was the only one that was not made official.Kww (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaire Reporter coverage.
Kww (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Times coverage
Kww (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unesco report on the legislation
Kww (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your confusion. I'll check with the Bonaire Reporter staff and see if they can find the actual text of the proclamation. I can do business with the government of Bonaire in English ... I file permit applications in English, land zoning applications in English, etc. That was not possible before March 2007. Since then, the answer I get is that they are required to accept my petitions in English, but they may only have the forms available in Dutch and Papiamentu. If I have the form translated and submit the translation, they always accept it. Anecdotally, I've heard of similar situations of Papiamentu speakers dealing with the government of Sint Maarten.

I think the text of the proclamation made everything official everywhere, but in practice, English isn't used much on Curacao and Bonaire, and Papiamentu isn't used on the northern islands.
Kww (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to Nepal

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your edit to Nepal in which you removed the long name and restored the short name. Kushal (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]