User talk:Antidote/Archive1

Leave me a message.

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. You

can sign your post like I did by using 4 tildes (~&#126;), which will leave your username and time you posted the comment.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial, which can be very useful later.
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * Check out Redwolf24's Bootcamp! Redwolf is a very friendly user, and this page might prove useful to you.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes at some point, here is what Wikipedia is not, which might help you out. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing! - User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]01:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Images
Wikipedia is very serious with the copyright issue. Please read carefully Copyrights abut image usage. You cannot put copyright tags on images arbitrarily. mikka (t) 17:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You people are completely impossible. First you bitch about copyrights, then when I put them on you bitch some more. None of which in that link applies to these images, so I did the only thing that was allotted to me. Seriously, get over it. If you have a problem with the way i copyright it; help copyright it for me.

I cannot copyright them for you, whatever you mean. First, only the owner of the image can determine its copyright. When you take an image from somewhere, you must check what is the copyright. If it is unknown, this means you have no right to use it. Plain and simple. Since I don't know where you took images from, I cannot help you.

The second thing, you msut always indicate the source of the image.

Previously wikipedia was pretty lax with images. Now hundreds of people are working and cleaning up the mess. Please don't increase it. Just read the rules, as I said. If something is unclear, please ask a question. mikka (t) 01:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The images I upload are constrcuted from many different images; all of which are freely distributed on search engines. Most search engines I know of do not distibute copyrighted images that can't be used, since it would make no sense to do so. Therefore it's likely that all these images are copyrighted but free for distribution. Hence most of my tags are right.
 * The search engine do not "distribute" anything. It just points to webpages. Or are you speaking about something else? If a webpage doe not give a copyright notice, then you don't have a right to take the image. You can take only what is allowed by the owner. If you don't know whether the owner allows you to take it, this means you cannot. mikka (t) 02:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Images in lists
Putting many images in lists slows down page loading enormously.

Please take a look at List of illuminated manuscripts and Gallery of illuminated manuscript images for a proper way of doing this. mikka (t) 17:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no way I'm letting you delete all that just because some people's computers can't handle it. Look at List of Austrians

there is no way we will allow you to behave in this noncooperative way. Unless you tone down when criticized or you will have serious problems. mikka (t) 01:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason not to include what I have editted, as many other lists have it. I don't go and en masse revert your major edits. Criticism without reason creates noncooperation. Antidote 01:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not suggesting you to delete "that". I am suggesting you a proper way to organize things, so that even these "some people" will be happy. mikka (t) 01:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Then I'll make the images very small like they have on list of Austrians. Is that fine?


 * Please sign your posts. It is very easy: just type four tildas: ~, it will generate your sig.
 * Ideally every person in the list deserves an image. If you do this, the list will become unreadable and unusable.
 * I just posted the comment at the talk page with the same suggestion.
 * Please take a look at Gallery of illuminated manuscript images.

If you don't want a separate gallery article, see how it is done in List of billionaires. mikka (t) 01:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with list of Austrians? It makes no sense to do it in the way the list of billionaires (2005) page does it, and making a separate gallery is pointless since most of these images are already on the individual person's page. If I just make the images really small it shouldn't be a problem.

Please sigh your posts. It makes sense, because it creates less mess. However small you make the image, you cahnot have an image for every line. People stare adding more pics, and the text will become very difficult to track. Just make an experiment: cut and paste the same image for every line in a section and hit the preview button. I doubt that you will be happy with what you see. mikka (t) 02:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am using official census results for neighbouring countries and estimates of the Agency for the Bulgarians abroad for emigrant populations. That's about it. I am not "bloating" anything - but you seem to want to shrink number as much as possible. Something against Bulgarians, I can clearly see. VMORO 21:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Image
Nearly all admins from sr: wiki elect Image:Srbi.jpg to be on article Serbs. I don't see what you have about that image? What to mix. I think that we can choose what is best solution of image that represents Serbian people here on en: wiki. If you have something to say, say it to sr: village pump. --Sasa Stefanovic 01:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a horrible representation of Serbs. Putting Vlade Divac, a minor basketball player, on a list with men who don't even parallel his career in any way shape or form is just plain ridiculous. I did comment on the sr: village pump and so far no one has responded.


 * Stop changing the picture! That is vandalism! --M. Pokrajac 18:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What you were doing initially was vandalism as well. I see no reason why I can't do the same. Both discussion pages are ignoring my (and two other users) disagreements. Antidote 18:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Bosniaks
As one of the primary writers of the article on Bosniaks I'd like to inform you that I'm sick and tired of the false and inaccurate changes to the introductory paragraph coming from the likes of you and several anonymous ip adresses (Which, I suspect, are directly related to you as well). Either cease with the vandalism or me and several other users will be forced to take action and bring this issue up to the powers that be. Live Forever 23:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Bosniaks are a Slavic-Muslim peoples. No one will contend with that sentence, for it is true. They are a mix of Slavs who converted to Islam and Muslim peoples who turkified them, with frequent intermarriage due to religious connection. No history book will deny this, yet you seem to."


 * Where to begin? First of all, the closely related Croats and Serbs are Slavic-Catholic and Slavic-Orthodox peoples respectively, but their pages don't mention this. The logical conclusion is that pushing religion to the forefront of the Bosniaks article is the result of a clear Serb bias and historical ignorance. Your incoherent babbling about some sort of "Turkification" confirms this (Interestingly enough, today's Serbian ethnic culture is just as, if not more, influenced by the Turkish element. This is clear in linguistics, folk-rituals, dress, etc.). Second of all, "Slavs" are not some ethnic group but a linguistic group, so, by virtue of simply speaking the Bosnian language, modern day Bosniaks are no less Slavic than their ancestors, even if they had "mixed" with non-Slavs. Speaking of which, I don't know what history books you're reading, but all credible modern histories of the region have confirmed by way of Ottoman military census analysis that there was never any significant influx of Muslims from other regions of the Ottoman Empire into Bosnia. In fact, converts from existing non-Muslim peoples, such as Vlachs and Hungarians, were probably far more prominent. Recent genetic studies have reconfirmed this. Live Forever 00:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Listcruft
Per your suggestion I've added List of Europeans to AfD if you'd like to vote. Cheers, Marskell 17:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish lists
Hi, Jewish people are a diaspora and ethnicity just like African Americans. If you do not think that African American lists should be deleted then please change your vote on these lists. Arniep 18:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks for your rude message. Actually it was someone asking me how to contact an administrator. Sorry to bother you. Arniep 18:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am just upset that these lists are being nominated. The point I was trying to make was it is not right that people are equating jewish lists with lists of other religions as other religions are not an ethnic group or diaspora. Jewish people feel that they are a nationality as they have been rejected and discriminated against by many nations. Also some people argue they are deleting these lists because being Jewish may have little to do with the occupation or achievement, but what has being an actor to with nationality really? I really do not see fair treatment here, in peoples paranoia against anti semitism they are actually being discriminatory themselves. Arniep 19:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Votes
I have noticed that you voted to delete lists such as Jewish publishers, criminals, and bankers, but chose to keep the list of Jews in the Royal Society, and in the National Academy of Engineering. I implore you to reconsider your votes (either staying neutral or voting delete) for the following reasons:

I understand you see that religion may influence a person's work in science, but that is not what is under debate here. Most people want these lists gone because they are the ONLY ones of their kind on all of wikipedia; many of which do not even have primary articles: such as List of Fellows of the Royal Society, or List of Members of the National Academy of Engineering. Whoever started these lists most likely did so because they were not aware of categories, or how selective wikipedia is. The specificity of these lists is what makes them unfit. We cannot end up having these because they would spark a revolution of PCness and listcruft where list of Amish Members of the National Academy, and list of Left-handed Members of the National Academy would arise. Though I agree with you that, sure, religion has an influence on the scientific work a person does, these lists don't reflect that in any way. These votes are getting very personal to some people, whereas they are registering new names just to keep them here. I ask you to please abstain your vote, for it would aid us unimaginably. Thank you for your consideration. Antidote 19:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't oppose deletion if the existence of those lists was documented somewhere for easy inclusion when the main lists get written. Until then, I err on the side of caution and vote to keep. Just because the list is not complete in listing Academy or Society members, is not enough reason to delete it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. If you blank your talk page, it's a good idea to note it in the edit summary, so it's easier to check through the history. Personally, I prefer the use of archive pages, but I know not everyone likes those, so I won't push that. However, if you get a lot of messages, it makes looking up old messages a LOT easier. I do recommend it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Srbi.jpg
Please stop mucking about with this image file. Make a new image file from the other version if you want that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Romanians
Please present some sources for your population numbers. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Source Antidote
Next time a file a vandalism report!

http://www.guv.ro/presa/afis-doc.php?idpresa=42228&idrubricapresa=&idrubricaprimm=&idtema=&tip=&pag=1&dr=

This is the official statement of the Prime Minister Berlusconi visiting Romania. Next be more carefully when editing. And this is not "estimates are nationalist bloats ". So stop it or else you'll be blocked. User:Bonaparte
 * For God sake this is official link ([])of the Romanian Government!User:Bonaparte

Those numbers have as much weight as the Russian pages that say Russia is 90% Russian. Wikipedia is not inclusive of all estimates from random agencies or people's webpages - that's why you don't see infinite amount of sources. Antidote 18:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Last warning!
Stop your vandalism. This is your last warning.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Romanians, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bonaparte This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Germans, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bonaparte This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Bulgarians, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bonaparte

Please read up on vandalism on the wikipedian pages, before spewing your biases. Thanks. Antidote 18:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Next time you'll be blocked! --Bonaparte
 * OK. If that's what it takes to spare Wikipedia from nationalists, bloaters, and bias then so be it. If the standard your Romanian page has is not the same standard employed on Bulgarians, Germans, English people page -- there is something CLEARLY wrong with the system. Antidote 19:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Last warning!
Stop your vandalism. This is your last warning.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Romanians, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bonaparte This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Germans, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bonaparte This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Bulgarians, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bonaparte

Danish people
I see you added some numbers of estimated Danish populations - please cite your sources! I know the rest don't have any sources, but that's why it would be good if you would please start to do so. Poulsen 23:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * From my talk page:
 * Well, you were wrong, at least on Greenland.. Poulsen 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess the real question is, if you knew that -- why didn't you add it? I practically made the entire page for Danes, including much of the statistics, and COULD have used some help, not just criticism. Also, I never said I was right (that's why I put EST next to it - plus being 14,000 off isn't necessarily a tragedy - so I'm sure you can get over it). Antidote 05:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the real question is, why not use three minutes to find the proper numbers directly in the CIA World Fact Book? Claiming my inadequacy to help out with the page doesn't excuse your own errors. I don't care as much for the content on the page as you appearently do, I just care about the sources - citing 20,000 (40% Danes in Greenland), and then be 14,000 off (12% Danes) is a pretty unqualified estimate, without regard of any real numbers. Poulsen 15:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And also apparently wrong on the US number: it's about twice the official census number. It was first changed from 1.4 to 2.5 million by an IP similar to the one you were using before. It was later raised again by you to 3 million without stating any sources at all. Can you explain this? Jbetak 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What, now you're investigating me? Jesus Christ people, chill out. US census numbers are almost always grossly underrepresented, especially for old settlers like Danes, Germans, and Brits - many of whom register as American or not at all due to location. If this doesn't come as obvious to both of you then there's a serious problem here. Doubling the number is being plain prude. I originally thought adding a million was enough (hence the 2.5 million change) but later realized that it was being overly cautious (see census report we quarrel about on Germans page), hence 3 million change. Antidote 05:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't add numbers that are merely guesses on your part. That is not helping.  Either put in official numbers, with notes on any systematic errors these may contain, or no numbers at all. --Per Abrahamsen 13:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Germans
You refuse to use the talk page. assume bad faith, keep reverting other population numbers and don't bother to link the 1990 source. if you use a 2004 document, then use the latest census number as well. Please also remember to log into your account. If you are blocked, don't edit. If you are unable to compromise, please consider leaving altogether.


 * I've noticed a lot of Wikipedian users are assholes, but this just takes the cake. Talk about really trying to get rid of a fellow editor. Also, although many stubborn users refuse to admit it, find a consensus does not mean you winning, it means find the best suitable representation that we can all agree on Antidote 06:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, I'd like to challenge you to show me how the 57 million number comes together in the original 1990 US Census. I'm curious to see how well you research your claims. I have fixed the link in the article BTW.

Jbetak 01:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have yet to see WHY you can't find the number - it's rather easy, but since I do want you to see it, I'll guide you through a step by step process:


 * 1) Open link: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cp3/cp-3-2.pdf
 * 2) Find Population Statistics on Chart (1990 on left, 2000 on right)
 * 3) Find Germans
 * 4) Look at 1990 --- 57 million exactly what I put
 * 5) Look at 2000 --- 43 million
 * 6) Look at population change --- 15 million in 10 years
 * 7) Think - No mass exodus back to Germany - No low birth rate - No possible adimixture that destroys German identity
 * 8) Conclude that best thing to do in this case is keep 1990 census as the 2000 one does not make sense, resulting from a multitude of circumstances - many influencing surveys (as this is what it was)

Good enough I hope. Also, please find something better to contribute to Wikipedia than investigating my work. thanks. Antidote 06:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey - just got your message. Don't worry and get some sleep. We'll continue this later; I expect to be quite busy this week. Best Jbetak 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Mykola Burachek
Please avoid copy-pasting articles verbatim, use them as a source but try not to modify the texts, so no copyrighted text longer than a sentence will appear to the article. In any way please put All your sources into the external links section, it would help to verify the facts and it will help to establish a good faith if there any copyright problems arise.

I and User:Irpen have cleaned the article, but please in the future avoid the copyright violations.

Thanks for your work on an intersting painter anyway abakharev 06:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Antidote, I added some info and pics to the article and would like to thank you for starting it. Please note, however, that the author of the text who wrote it for EoU doesn't hold the copyright of the text. It is held by the "Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies" as per the web-site. Even if an approval from the real copyright holder is obtained, the link to the source is very helpful. Thanks! --Irpen 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Bonaparte  talk  19:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

stop harrasing people's user talk page!
Stop harrasing people's user talk page! -- Bonaparte  talk  20:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, the only person who is harassing anyone's talk page is you - evidenced by MY talk page - please show me who's talk page I harassed - if ANYONES. Thanks. Antidote 20:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC
Hello, I know you are the same editor as User:StabRule. Please admit this to User:OwenX or User:SlimVirgin and ask them to close your StabRule account and any other accounts you have. I see you do some good edits but also you engage in a lot of needless edit warring, multi-voting, using profanities and making personal attacks. If you want to change something that may be controversial state exactly what you want to change on the talk page and see if other editors agree. Please stop editing under anonymous ip addresses also, there is no need to do this if you intend to behave in an acceptable way. Regards Arniep 23:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If i edit under anons its because I get logged out. User:StabRule and I are not the same person - we are two different people from the same area. I can guarantee you that. Antidote 03:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * do you have any more friends that help you with things, like deleting Jewish lists for example? Arniep 04:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I can assure you no one is conspiring against Jewish lists. I don't like lists in general unless they are lists by country, and prefer categories for almost everything else. All I wish to do is clean up all the extra lists that we have and then have a mass categorization of Jewish professions in categories if possible. I will gladly contribute to that as much as I can (though I don't see the need for categories that are TOO specific). I have no problems with lists as indexes, or lists that specify a specific sector of a peoples (like in the case of Jews, Orthodox ones or nonreligiou ones or anything like that). I also have some experience with Judaism as a religion/culture, as my mother was born in the Jewish faith - so it's not like I'm editing things I have little knowledge of (if you see that as a possible problem) Category:Jewish historians you'll be seeing as my next project. Antidote 04:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Regards Arniep 14:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I support the decision of Arniep! He had an outrageous bad behaviour.-- Bonaparte  talk  17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Bonaparte, bad behavoir for you is disagreeing with your bloated statistics on Romanians. And Arniep, I did answer your question partly at least - I may have a few acquantances or people I know of on Wikipedia - but none of them target Jewish lists - they all have their own interests (though sometimes they may cross over with mine - obviously). Antidote 17:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In case you miss it at my talk page I've decided to stay out of this issue and the RfC. Please do not appear at my talk page to discuss the RfC or to respond to this. Any post by you at my talk page that concerns the RfC will be deleted unanswered. Thank you for your time.--T. Anthony 01:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Spaniards
Explained in edit comment: many zeros bad to count by eye; also for imprecise mubers they give a false illusion of precision; also, you changed some numbers (8-10 into 10).

RFC: I erroneously thought one of your recent edits in List of Jews in the performing arts as disruptive behavior. Removing my name from RFC. mikka (t) 18:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Accurate: the whole my point is that the statistic is inexact. Another issue is whether it is "correct"; here I have no idea. In such cases, if you change something then you must prove that you are right (or less wrong), rather than the previous version. mikka (t) 18:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

there are one million romanians in Italy
An October 2005 report estimates that 1,061,400 Romanians are living in Italy, constituting 37.2% of 2.8 million immigrants in that country. -- Bonaparte  talk  20:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have given also the Prime Minister of Italy official statement, now what's your problem? we'll continue only in RfC. Is that clear?-- Bonaparte  talk  21:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC
Hi, you are not permitted to respond in the outside view section. Thanks Arniep 20:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Antidote 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Images
Every image requires the source to be stated so the license can be verified, please see the top of this page Image copyright tags. Regards Arniep 21:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't want to "wipe you off Wikipedia" I just want you to admit you use Sock puppet accounts and ask for them to be closed. Thanks Arniep 21:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why the hell would I admit to something that ISN'T true?! There's nothing on wikipedia that says I cannot edit with acquantances and friends - and that is exactly what I've been doing - much in the same way that you edit with some of the user's on the Jewish pages. There is no reason I would be so adamant about my denial of this - for having extra usernames is utterly pointless for me and gives me no advantage over anything! I admit I was rude to some users (but so were they to me), and I admit I was in many edit wars (who isn't?!?!). I am frankly upset at your uncalled for drill of my image uploads though, but that's another story. Antidote 22:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I know you used the other accounts to try and force the deletion of Jewish lists. Regards Arniep 22:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that's what you wish to think because you are entirely too protective of them. So in an attempt at revenge (so it seems) you try to dig up as much on me as possible (like uncited images). Antidote 22:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care about those lists, what I care about is your huge disruptive behaviour and your using multiple accounts to get your own way. Regards Arniep 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom
Oh dear Sock_puppet. Ciao Arniep 00:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought you were asleep? You weren't telling the truth about that were you ;) Arniep 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Told the truth about what? How are my friends meatpuppets? It says specifically a meatpuppet is a single purpose user. Incase you haven't noticed, everyone you have encountered has a large belt of edits under their sleeve. Antidote 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello they are not your friends they are you. You set up your User:StabRule account for the express purpose of using it as an extra account to delete Jewish lists because people were questioning the anonymous votes. Regards Arniep 01:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Responses
Hello, I didn't think it would necessary to point out the page as it is on the rfc page itself:

"This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section"

Also, your "friends" won't be able to make new accounts if they are banned as all re-creations of accounts by banned users or ip addresses are subject to instant banning. It would be wise for you to admit you are using these other accounts and ask for them to be closed and then everyone can just carry on editing in a nice civil manner. Regards Arniep 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Karolszymanowski.jpg
OK, you just removed the nosource tag on this image put on there by User:Mikkalai on October 20th, and changed it to no rights reserved. How did you determine that this tag is suitable for this image? Arniep 23:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also please put a source and description on each image page. Thanks Arniep 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And you did it for this Image:Ncybul.jpg also. Arniep 23:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I know I did - there's no need to tell me I did. Antidote 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The implied question was "Why did you remove the tag?". An answer would be appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * um.........because otherwise it was at risk for being deleted. I'm not sure what you mean - what's the problem? Antidote 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering. Looking at the image, the given source is just a URL: http://www.ee.pw.edu.pl/sep108/pli/wep.htm, which is fine, except that the webpage says at the bottom: "Copyright by AJM & Piotr Marusak".  Now, the image looks like a old image, so it may not be in copyright, but just the URL where you found it doesn't show that at all.  So more source info is needed; something making it clear why you believe that the image is in the public domain.  That's the problem. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I doubt the image is copyrighted by the webpage holders - I think they just took it from a book or something since it looks more like an old picture - like you said. Seeing as it can be used in a webpage of the like - it seems no stringent copyright rule may be imposed upon it. Antidote 04:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish that was good enough, but it isn't. There are a lot of websites out there that use pictures, esspecially "old looking pictures" even though the pictures are not legal.  That's not acceptable for Wikipedia. It will have to be deleted unless someone can produce a better explanation of why it is PD or otherwise legal for us to use. I am retagging it with the no license tag. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Dzamonja.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dzamonja.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use or fairuse. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yea they all have tags but I didn't put the sources for all - which at the time didn't seem a necessity from all the images I've been coming across. Anyway, the Dzamonja img is from Wikiverse. I put that there. Antidote 00:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've investigated that picture, Image:Dzamonja.jpg further and it turns out to be pretty funny, in a sad way. Originally, the first version of the article on Dušan Džamonja, in 15:52, 20 February 2004 by User:Mir Harven, contained a picture, called Image:Dzamonja.jpg; it had no explanation of it's source, and was duly tagged as such and eventually deleted.  However, before this could happen, the article, including the picture, was copied by wikiverse, and placed at this URL.  From there, you found it and reuploaded it to the 'pedia.  Sadly, it still has no source, and still needs to be deleted.  Sorry for your trouble. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can ask the User who originally uploaded it where he found it? Antidote 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have asked. Thanks.  We'll see what the result is.  JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish inventors
Lists certainly do have usefulness. Categories are limited to the number of people that can be shown on one page, whereas lists can be scanned easily. Lists allow you to see names in context with descriptions and explanation, categories do not. I hardly see how your "ethnic battling" argument holds ground when you yourself recently created Category:Slovak inventors and Category:Serbian inventors. Regards Arniep 20:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't make the categories. Besides, I said before that I AGREE with categories - they are helpful - and I will gladly make one for that list for deletion. What I meant by ethnic battling is that LISTS on the other hand do not have a basis since they are all separate articles - made to explicitly highlight themselves. Categories on the other hand are PART of a larger category. You don't expect that if a list of Jewish inventors survives the Germans, the English, the Catholics won't want to make their own lists and TONS of other peoples with specific adherences?! THAT indeed is a creation-war on ethnic lines (and other lines, like sexual preference). Antidote 21:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (i) you did make the categories, (ii) Please tell me how you came to this informed judgement "you implied several times that you take them personally.". Regards Arniep 22:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments
Hello, you are only allowed to make edits in the response section on the main page. Thanks Arniep 23:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

VMORO
Nationmaster is a website mirroring Wikipedia. As for the Factbook - Eurostat, the UN and the Bulgarian national statistics give completely different numbers for the population of Bulgaria as at 2005. So we are going to include five different numbers or what? Third of all, the Factbook does not state the number you keep posting - it is a number which you have calculated yourself. Thank you very much but estimates by Antidote have no place in any article here. It's quite evident you are engaged in trolling and there are many other users who notice that. VMORO 11:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more - yet he still doesn't want to understand. A third of my talk page is full of whining about spiteful assholes trying to dig up "stuff" on him, when he simply has no idea of the RfC process and its purpose.


 * Instead of having a material discussion to determine which numbers and why should be included we are all just wasting time. Personally, I'd prefer most of the diaspora numbers gone - or placed differently. Antidote aside for a moment, there will always someone claiming that someone somewhere under or overcounted "Ebonians". Besides, the current numbers are like apples and oranges. Several articles include numbers from the German statistical office, which counts people by citizenship, not by ethnicity. Yet we also have US diaspora numbers, where most ethnicities have been largely assimilated. On average only 4-6% of European immigrants and their descendants speak language other then English in the US. Also on average 30% report a mixed ancestry, i.e. they are likely to be doublecounted. Jbetak 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Dmcdevit·t 22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Romanian population
Do you actually agree with all those very very high numbers User:NorbertArthur and User:Bonaparte are putting. They very clearly present themselves to be nationalists and continuously add only the highest numbers from the most random webpage they can find. A million Romanians in Spain and Italy? Those numbers are quite frankly unbelievable -- if there in fact were that many then information on them would be more readily available than just on those webpage and Romanian biased pages. I say we put a tag on the page concerning factual information. Antidote 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally suspect that the numbers are too high, but agree that they are stated by citable sources (at least the US and Italy numbers; offhand I don't think I've followed through on the number for Spain). I was last in Spain in 2002 and Italy (other than changing planes) in 1996, so that if there has been a recent and enormous influx of Romanians, I wouldn't necessarily know. On the other hand, I find it very disingenuous when people use numbers like this to boost the total number of Romanians. Clearly, if there has been a recent and enormous flow of Romanians to Spain and Italy, it has corresponded to an equal reduction of the number elsewhere, mainly in Romania, Moldova and perhaps Ukraine. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that you responded again on my talk page. For simplicity and clarity, I have replied to you there, and will copy the above comment to keep the conversation in one place. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Jewish inventors
Any debate that results in no consensus automatically becomes a keep, unless the closing editor/admin makes an editorial decision to merge and redirect (which always can be undone). So the short and to the point "keep" is an accurate representation of the debate. Johnleemk | Talk 19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If people only glance at the top of an AfD debate, they really aren't qualified to be discussing the deletion of the article. Even a quick glance would show the article was kept because of lacking consensus. Anyway, I inserted the phrase "no consensus" in the debate already. Johnleemk | Talk 07:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Myaskovsky.jpg
This image is tagged by you with. This may not be used as an image tag on Wikipedia unless this condition, from Image copyright tags is met:

"the image description page should also contain some rationale as to whether and why the image is presumed to be in the public domain in the U.S., too!"

Please see if this can be done. If an image can be found that can be donated to the Wikimedia project by its copyright owner, that would be best. Thank you. Schissel-nonLop! 04:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)