User talk:Emilfarb/2008

Welcome!

Hello, Emilfarb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! WLU 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

original research

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to North American currency union, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Currency zones.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Currency zones.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metropolitan areas.jpg

I was wondering if you created the actual map that is the background of the image or simply placed the city information on an existing map you found. If you did not create the map itself then you do not own the copyright for it and cannot release it into the public demain (I think, although I'm not an expert on copyright law). If the original image was free then you should add the licensing information for the image. If it was unfree it requires a fair use rationale. however it is unlikely that such a rationale would stand up since it is likely there are many free world map images available (so the image would fail WP:NFCC number 1). As I said if you did create the map yourself this is not a problem and I apologise for disturbing you with the issue. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:IQ by Country.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:IQ by Country.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soxred93 | talk bot 03:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY:

I Alexander Emilfaro created this image myself using Wikipedia's blank map, this table http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp and MS paint. I beg not to delete it only because you don't like the result your country receives in IQ and the Wealth of Nations book by Dr. Richard Lynn. I am HAPPY to release this work to the public domain.

circumcision map

Hi, Emilfaro!

Thanks for contributing to the Circumcision page. However, would you please discuss things with other editors on the talk page? There's a section Talk:Circumcision#Prevalence map, and Tremello22 has already previously posted some concerns there. Please read that discussion and post some comments yourself there.

I'm not sure whether you're aware of the three-revert rule. I'm not sure whether your edits are violating it or not, but I suggest discussing things on the talk page and waiting a while before making more edits to the article.

If I understand correctly, one of your concerns is that you originally made the map and someone else was taking credit for a modified version of it. If so, I'm sure that can be worked out satisfactorily, but please explain the situation on the talk page and give a little time for people to work things out. There may be other concerns, too; page content is determined by consensus, not decided by any one person alone. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edits at Circumcision violate the three-revert rule. You might want to consider reverting your own last edit back to Tremello22's version: you might be able to avoid being blocked by doing that. I'd also really like to see comments by you in the discussion on the talk page. Tremello22 and I have both posted comments there in the last few minutes; I'd like to see your answeres to them. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

NawlinWiki (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I believe you were blocked for 24 hours and are no longer blocked. Please don't violate rules such as 3RR in order to attract attention. I don't think it works: I don't think you attracted any attention by getting blocked. I didn't even notice you had been blocked until I came here to post a message to you. Violating rules causes disruption and if done repeatedly may lead to indefinite blocking. I'd rather see you continuing to be able to contribute in positive ways. The map you contributed is a very useful contribution. I hope you'll do more things like that. If you have a disagreement about whether a map is included in an article etc., please discuss it with other editors and try to work things out. I think we may have almost worked things out at Talk:Prevalence of circumcision#prevalence map and I hope soon we will have reached a consensus.

The reason I came here was to tell you that I've started a discussion at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Image:Circumcision_by_Country.png about the copyright status of the map. Coppertwig (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) I'll just move on. Emilfaro

Re "the proof": For one of the versions of the map (Image:Circumcision by Country-2008-28-07.png) I've edited the file to insert your username. I hope that whichever is kept as the final version will have your username. However, I believe that when you're at Wikipedia, if you click on any image which is at Commons (most images in Wikipedia articles), it will say "create this page": I don't think that proves anything. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong :-) The Proof is on commons as well. But it says "edit this page". And they already try to delete it :-) Emilfaro

TUSC token 7417e9d61ee677b3d0133651417ce365

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Image:Forbidden Knowledge 2.png

Thank you for providing images to the Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on the Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikipedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best use CommonsHelper
If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Fil nik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to Fake an Image in Wikipedia

Find a Wikipedia image you want to fake, which is not on Commons;
Upload your image with the same name on Commons;
Upload a new version on Commons, which is actually the original;
The original image on wikipedia is now going to fall victim to speedy deletion;
Now revert to the first version, your version on Commons and end up with it;
Enjoy! Wikipedia is dead.

The Proof

This screenshot shows a real life situation of my image being faked by RasterB.

File:The Proof.png

The fakery proof

This Wikipedia screenshot shows that the existing image asks if you want to create this page. And not edit this page as normal. The word image in the up-left corner is red. This is said to be normal for images that are on Commons, nevertheless it does not exclude the system vulnerability.

It shows the dates of the faking procedures as well.

To find out why and how the faking process took place take a look at the talk page and the history page for the period since I added the image for the first time.

Warning

This is the only warning you will receive for your personal attack - comments such as this are completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated. _Gb^T/c 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad behavior

I have reported you here for repeated policy violations after many attempts by myself and other editors to warn you of policy and etiquette. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note, Commons discussion about your circumcision maps

In case you do not check your Commons user talk page often, please review Commons:User talk:Emilfaro#Discussion about your images when you can. Thank you! rootology (T) 23:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Attention 5#Circumcision maps & Emilfaro

Anyone know what is going on with Emilfaro (talk · contribs), RasterB (talk · contribs), Image:Circumcision by Country.png and Image:Forbidden Knowledge 2.png? Seems there's a bit of trouble over on English about it, and I noticed edit warring here. Emilfaro's user page is also talking about faking images. rootology (T) 23:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a hard case pushing sourced and neutral map to the article about Circumcision. See the Archive 43 (could be moved by RasterB, search history). At the beginning the image of mine has been faked by RasterB. To see how take a look at my Knol on it as it has been deleted from Wikipedia as well as Commons. Emilfaro (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I deleted the image I invited Emilfaro to e-mail me about achieving a more productive resolution to his problem. Durova (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my job to catch bugs. But no offence taken.Emilfaro (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, please revise your user page. It's not really helpful to attempt to solve your problem that way. Durova (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only way, that got me this far. As I didn't even know of the existance of this page. And now I need some time to sleep, sorry :-) Emilfaro (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my pages as you have requested :-) Emilfaro (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And best wishes. I hope your problem has resolved itself. Please give a heads up if it continues. Durova (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maps

How do you make your maps? The design is very nice. --Legalleft (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visit Wikipedia:Blank_maps and take a map. But I prefer this one --- you'll have to increase color depth with IrfanView if you use this. Then use MS Paint. For these maps I used shades of gray, that you can tune in the palette: 70,70,70; 120,120,120; 170,170,170; 220,220,220. The font is Calibri, which is available in Vista. Emilfaro (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way you don't need IrfanView --- this version (next to last) is already 16,7 million colors. Emilfaro (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Legalleft (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, for the brandt line map image that you saw fit to edit. Found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:North_South_Divide_3.PNG Please, explain to me. What logic compelled you to assume that the US, a superpower, should belong in the undeveloped region of the world? Or Japan, one of the most developed countries in the world? Why?

Please. My intellect cannot comprehend it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.225.104.15 (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke :-) North-South divide, you know... But talking seriously: you'll see it coming over the next few years. Not sure about Japan though. Emilfaro (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could as well be interested in this Pentagon's map. Emilfaro (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. Epic troll is epic. That was awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.38.36.90 (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Real Politics.png

Hi Emilfaro, could you please explain what the purpose of Image:Real Politics.png is? What does it try to explain, or what kind of information does it try to get across, in the articles you are inserting this map on ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]), that will increase the readers understanding of the article subject? Thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing difficult to explain. It shows modern civilizations. I insert it in places most relevant to the concept of civilization. I stop doing that, if it disturbs you :-) Emilfaro (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it... the stopping I mean, thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Map lists its references. Can putting more than one country on the map be considered an original research?"[11]. Of course it can. Don’t you see any difference between what you claim "Civilizations of the XXI century", and what your sources claim Image:Real Politics.png#Summary? Do those sources claim to be Civilizations of the XXI century. --Van helsing (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion deserves to be public :-) Emilfaro (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t hiding it, this is your public talk page :-), but you’re right. --Van helsing (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Politics.png

Brasil should be renamed latinamerica. Brasil speaks portuguese, and all the rest of latin america spanish. This is unrealistic.--Esteban.barahona (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

51% of South Aperica speks portuguese. Brasil is the biggest country. Make your own version, if you want to. But it is impossible to push it to Wikipedia anyway. Emilfaro (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Sponsors of Terrorism

Surely the U.S. didn't put themselves on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other reason to maintain it ;-) Emilfaro (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Number of Terrorist Incidents.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Number of Terrorist Incidents.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose discussion not to be interesting. Thank you. Emilfaro (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Number_of_Terrorist_Incidents.png

Image deletion warning

Image:Number_of_Terrorist_Incidents.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Damiens.rf 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military alliances map

Your new map about military alliancies is wrong. According to your map, USA and Venezuela are allies, and Russia and Georgia too - this is absolutely nonsense. Actually, USA is more georgian ally than russia (because they just had a war) and russia is becoming an ally of venezuela. Your map is saying the opposite. --Novis-M (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference this is the map of existing military alliances. It only shows the biggest of them. There is Rio Pact and CIS. These are historic spheres of influence. But there are Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas and GUAM as well. Even neighbours have quarrels. Emilfaro (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. I mean map now shows, that US and Venezuela are allies, which is not true´. It also shows Russia and Georgia as allies - they just had a war with each other! What kind of military alliance is that? --Novis-M (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even so. The paper alliances has not yet dissolved. Chávez and Saakashvili talk a lot, but haven't completely left the treaties yet. As soon as they do, I'll modify the map. Emilfaro (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example Georgia already left the CIS. --Novis-M (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has not. By the rules of the treaty country that wishes to leave has to inform others 12 months in advance. It shall only leave CIS in one year, if the decision is not changed by that time. Emilfaro (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there are countries which led war against each other under the same color and alliance (like russia+georgia), then the map is, unfortunately, useless. --Novis-M (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no documented war between Russia and Georgia. Just an attack on peacekeepers. Emilfaro (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And invasion into the heart of Georgia. Here is the link on wikipedia article - 2008 South Ossetia war --Novis-M (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way 71 soldier is dead from Russian side, and 135 soldiers dead from the Georgian side. This can not qualify as war. Emilfaro (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here in wikipedia it is classified as a war. Even if not, how can be these countries allies?? --Novis-M (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can not define wars. War is a conflict causing 1000 soldiers deaths per year, as defined by the United Nations. And once again on paper Georgia has to leave CIS in one year, but if there is another president elected and decides otherwise, Georgia shall stay. Emilfaro (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, its a pity though, because I really think that map is not showing the real military alliances anymore, I liked the old versions more. Anyway, its your map. Who do you think would be probably more dangerous for US, russia or china? --Novis-M (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see Russia and China are the same at the moment. I think together they are equal to NATO. You could read Nineteen Eighty-Four to see the roots of the subject. I am thinking to add Mediterranean Dialogue to the NATO side... Good luck! Emilfaro (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your map you added Malaysia and Singapore to the SCO guest addendances but both of these countries are part of the Five Power Defence Arrangements, which I think makes them more Western allies than Eastern allies as they actually have a defence treaty with Western countries and not one with Eastern countries. Usergreatpower (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are passive participants in this agreement. The UK and Australia intend to 'protect' them in the case of aggression. It is closer to MNNA status. Emilfaro (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note it is 'arrangements', not even an 'agreement'. Emilfaro (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please link images

Hello Emilfarb/2008!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gold Inflation Adjusted.png is uncategorized since 3 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:American Empire Zenith (2004).png is uncategorized since 17 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Customs unions.png is uncategorized since 30 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Free Trade Areas.PNG is uncategorized since 1 January 2009. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Wars and Conflicts 1990-2008.png is uncategorized since 9 January 2009. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Commonwealth of Independent States.svg is uncategorized since 13 January 2009. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current Major Military Alliances map

In your File:Current_Major_Military_Alliances.png map, you keep marking Taiwan as part of the SCO, which makes no sense (you may not be aware of the situation there; the People's Republic of China claims but does not administer Taiwan; please see the article "political status of Taiwan" for further background) and, if anything, is the opposite of reality (relations between Taiwan and mainland China are tense). On at least four occasions, you have, perhaps unknowingly/unintentionally, overwritten versions of the map by User:Kavo that correct the Taiwan error.

Could you please upload a fixed version that does not make Taiwan part of the SCO? I'm asking this as a courtesy, since you are the original mapmaker. If you're too busy to upload a fixed version, let me know, and I can upload a fixed version myself, but please, in the future, don't overwrite with versions of the map that make Taiwan part of the SCO. Thank you.

—Lowellian (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand Taiwan is not considered as a state by the UN. Dismissed :-) Emilfaro (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Most active regional blocs

The articles about individual blocs are for information on each respective bloc only, not comparative studies. Such comparisons belong only in general articles (like trade bloc, where it already is). If you really want to have this template in the individual articles, then at the very least it needs to be collapseable and with all the other templates at the bottom. Otebig (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is aclually collapsible at the moment. Did you do this revision by the way? Emilfaro (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I only edit under this username. Nice job on the International Trade navbox - it looks good. Otebig (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It needs improvement. But it'll take time> Emilfaro (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second

Do not put this map of active blocs all over. As it is, it just does not match quality standards. More importantly, it is original research at its best. I think it just have to be removed anywhere. Please, join the discussion here if you disagree. Thanks. Tomeasy (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I sort out the trade agreements, I'll make a better one. It'll take time. Emilfaro (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remove them in the meantime. How do you think to tackle the WP:OR problem? Tomeasy (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reference the trade agreements. Emilfaro (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

en:Black Sea Trade and Development Bank

I see you've merged en:Black Sea Trade and Development Bank with en:Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation. I don't believe there had been any discussion - let alone consensus - for doing so. The bank, though connected to the BSEC, is a separate entity. BSTDB has received plenty of its own attention internationally, and is most definitely notable enough for it's own article. I'll give you a chance to respond before I undo your actions. Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this en:Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. But if you revert, I don't care in this case. Emilfaro (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand en:WP:MERGE, but I believe BSTDB is notable enough for its own article. Thank you for your quick response. Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent merges

You recently merged Eurasian Economic Community and Collective Security Treaty Organisation into CIS. EurAsEC and CSTO are distinct entities with different roles, and there is enough notability and material in order to keep them separate. Although you may have followed WP:MERGE, these merges were not discussed, and in unmerging them, it has created a lot of work in order to get the articles right. I don't know why, for example, you have removed external links and the like. I see that you have also been approached by others, and you commented that you don't care. Please bear in mind, that whilst we assume good faith with these merges, they may be seen by some as a little WP:DISRUPTive, given that they are not merges which were discussed and for which consensus to merge does not exist. In future, please discuss merges before doing so, so that we needn't have to undo controversial merges. Thanks, --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Можно говорить и по-русски :-) Эти статьи достаточно коротки. И Евраэс, и ОДКБ вырасли из соответствующих договоров СНГ. Если статьи расположены по отдельности, СНГ производит впечатление организации, не ведущей никакой деятельности. Вы вполне можете выделить эти статьи отдельно, но в этом нет особого смысла. Практически все ссылки из external были включены в references, за исключением тех, которые вели на русские сайты, не имеющие английских версий. Мне было все равно в отношении того банка. Но не все равно в отношении статей об СНГ. Зря воспринимаете меня, как разрушителя. Если взять в качестве примера статью про European union, которая достаточно хорошо проработана, она составляет 138кб. Статья про СНГ - 30кб, Евразэс и ОДКБ - по 10кб. При слиянии статей я проделал работу по улучшению читабельности и убрал дублированную, на мой взгляд, информацию. Если вы считаете, что я убрал что-то лишнее, это можно было восстановить уже в статье про СНГ, а не тупо делать undo. У меня нет большого желания вступать в полемику, но я считаю, что это объединение хорошо послужило статье про СНГ, и дробить ее на части просто глупо. Emilfaro (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the articles may be short in content, you will notice the EurAsEC article has an expand request on it. There is a wealth of information out there on EurAsEC and the CSTO which can be added into the articles. Unfortunately, articles relating to Russia/CIS are somewhat underdeveloped, unless of course there is something to be critical of, in which case you can be sure they are full of all types of criticism, but EurAsEC, CSTO, CIS, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and other such articles have a lot of room for expansion, as they are all notable entities in their own right. So the way to do it is to expand the articles on an individual basis, but remember there is no time limit on WP to get it done. Merging notable entities in their own right isn't really the way to do it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These organisations are really much more projects of CIS, than anything else. Not every member participates, and this marks the split of CIS, and causes misunderstanding. That's why these articles are unlikely to be expanded any time soon. Because activities of EAEC, CSTO and CIS are the same. I'll wait a bit, and then leave a proposal for articles merger, if they don't spontaneously start expanding :-) Good luck! Emilfaro (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Hello Emilfaro. I see you have recently been insisting in quite a large number of controversial merges, that have already been noticed by other editors such as Russavia and Otebig that have presented you with the main problems these present, in particular WP:DISRUPTION. Especially, it defeats me to understand how you thought that the merge of ALBA wouldn't have been highly contentious. I have, you will observe, undone your Latin American merges as they seemed especially weak to me; please don't undo them, it would be a violation of WP:MERGE and a disruptive act. Also, as an admin, let me advise you strongly to keep your communication on this talk page, instead of redirecting it to another wiki; it pretty absurd that to communicate one has to go to commons, where most wikipedians here don't even have an account. Have care, Aldux (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Previously I was more active on commons, so it was easier for me to answer questions there. They could be forgotten otherwise. I had no conflict with Otebig on mergers, at least I am unaware of it. If you make edits of some articles, some editors may have a feeling that it is their property. And that is the main case here. Main thing I did was merging stubs. I'll make proposals for mergers further on. But it'll gradually slow down the process improving significantly weak articles. Emilfaro (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Шанхайская организация сотрудничества

Don't worry, I'm not chasing you - I edit the ШОС article a lot, and from the templates you put on that article I started looking at the other trade bloc articles. I studied international trade in university, though, so it is fun for me to pull out my old textbooks and work on the related articles.

The template for Central Asian Organizations is for intergovernmental organizations centered around Central Asia (pretty self-explanatory). The SCO certainly qualifies. The organization is not Eurasian, but has a clearly Asian focus - Belarus was in fact denied membership because it was not in Asia (see the article). Additionally, in general "Eurasian" as a political grouping isn't used much in English, and when it is used, it's usually a direct translation from the Russian (Евразийский). As such, it would sound strange to English-speakers to use it for templates.

Finally, links to the Collective Security Treaty Organisation Eurasian Economic Community do not belong in the body of the article, as these are distinct organizations not connected to the SCO. Including them in the body of the article implies a connection, which is misleading and can misinform people (the opposite of Wikipedia's goal). China–Russia relations also does not belong in the body, as the origins of the SCO involve more than just those two countries. The Russia-China relations belongs in the See Also section, and the other two, as I said, are on the template at the bottom of the article (which should not be removed). I see what you mean about the country-listing template not being used in the EU article, so I won't re-add the SCO template to the SCO article. I'm removing the trade bloc template, though, because, as mentioned on another talk page, the SCO is not a trade bloc. Otebig (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object that SCO could be called a Central Asian organisation as 4 members are indeed located in Central Asia. But Russia is located in East Europe and North Asia, and China is in East Asia. SCO is a Eurasian organisation, and as for why it is not much discussed in English, you could read: The "Great Game": Eurasia and the History of War, and as well take a note that a Eurasian Empire previously existed. Emilfaro (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Empire Zenith

Hey there, I temporarily removed your image from the American Empire article. I would just like to make a few things clear before it is put into use. Please refer to the Talk page for further discussion. --m3taphysical (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]