User talk:Tulkolahten/Archive3

< Back to main talk

Jozef Regec
It seems odd to me that you listed Jozef Regec as being on the Czechoslovakian national team until 2000, considering that the state broke up in 1993. Could you clarify what you meant in the article? NickelShoe (Talk) 03:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering
Mate, it'd be nice to think you are assuming good faith. I'm not wikilawyering - the primary notability criterion (multiple, independent, etc.) is very well-established and it is easily met in this instance. Full argument on the AfD, but suffice to say, you've yet to give any reason based on any existing policy that would support its deletion. Trebor 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is against good faith. From the essay "WikiLawyering is a pejorative term". I ask you, what would I need to do to establish notability? I am working from the consensual definition on WP:N (which I can't see how I am violating the spirit of, please explain). What definition do you want me to work from? Trebor 01:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain how using a pejorative (read the definition) term to describe what I'm doing is not an insult. According to Wp:N: "'Non-triviality' is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." Considering the sources focus directly on the subject in question, in reasonable detail (they're not long articles, but nor are they especially short - there's plenty of information in them), then you can't say they're trivially mentioned. Trebor 01:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "Its principle is handling with mess. You insist on a couple of articles and you pass them off as non-trivial works" doesn't make sense. Since when was its principle "handling with mess", what does that even mean? A couple of articles which have this company as the focus, qualify as non-trivial. Trebor 12:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the information needed.
Thank you for your prompt response. I found the answer to my question through experimentation, and the help of an editor.Tonymartin 02:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Polish image
The image is licensed as "fair use" under U.S. law. The devil is in the last line of text: "They may not be used by Polish and foreign natural and legal persons for obtainment of financial gain." (=no commercial use of the images). I read this text the same way as you the first time, but I'm pretty sure we're stuck with the "fair use" license so we can't use it for this purpose which is a shame. The template would look nice with a good image. Happy editing. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but the problem is that all Wikipedia projects reserve the right to sell copies of Wikipedia on cd-rom or in print. The German Wikipedia already sells cd-roms of its content. So although the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit enterprise, actually selling any such cd-rom is an act of profit making, at least as far as the law is concerned. Another possibility would be to contact the Polish ministry and ask them if they were willing to release some of their images under public domain. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure some of our Polish editors have tried this but failed. Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice work. Thumbs up! Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist
Is anyone watching this page or it is dead ?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 11:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. x.x You'll probably be able to get better attention by posting to the admin noticeboard, or perhaps the village pump. Luna Santin 12:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

proposed deletion of Adam alsing
I have removed the prod tag from Adam alsing, which you proposed for deletion, because I feel that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist
Tulkolahten wrote:
 * Hi, this page appears to be dead. Nobody works there. I noticed it on admin's board I also requested but nobody paid attention.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is rather an out-of-the-way page, but I don't think it's dead. JzG handled a request earlier today. You might have to wait a bit longer for a response. Where did you place ? Someone in one of the "let's-help-newbies" departments should show up to assist you fairly quickly if you place it on your talk page. I'm not entirely familiar with either that process or the spam whitelist (not really my area of involvement), so it's probably best if your request is handled by someone who knows whaty they're doing – Gurch 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, you did. Sorry, I overlooked the comment above. Thought it might be Luna :). Anyway, if nobody responds on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist within a day, try leaving User:JzG a message; he may find time to handle your request – Gurch 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Disenchantment
I am sorry that you are disenchanted. The BBC is a reliable source, and given that the entire article is about the product, this would confer notability when combined with the other mentions. Proto :: ►  00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An article dedicated to the topic in a major media outlet does not signify notability? Perhaps you should have put forward a better case in the AFD.  If you disagree, WP:DRV is the place to go.  Proto ::  ►  00:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Tulko, I am also disappointed, of course. But one man's dirt is another man's gold. What you and I see as a couple of insignificant newspapers articles is called by others "articles in major media outlets", and they seem to be the concensus. Fighting Wikipedia and loving it :-) --Gabi S. 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Uploading Revised Images
Thanks for your response. There's something definitely weird going on. I CTRL+R'd but that didn't work. I deleted all my cached webpages, nor did that. But when I created a new link (in the sandbox) the correct image appeared, as it did on some of the linked pages I have not visited recently. Would you try something for me? If you look at the Winter Line page do you see the town of S. Pietro marked on the map? I don't. If you do then it is something wrong with my settings, if you don't then it is something wrong at Wiki. Thanks again for your help. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 12:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's clearly my problem. No I don't use Firefox, I'll have to dig into IE and work it out. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the information on unsigned comments! You guys are great!
Thanks! Strawberry Island 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II
Please take care about three revert rule. Other user's edits cannot be claimed as a vandalism because you disagree with them. You should discuss it on the talk page, but beware of revert war.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 15:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am well aware of the the triple revert rule, I also did not say that edit was vandalism, rather that it was bordering on vandalism, otherwise I would also have issued a vandalism warning to said user's talk page. Here is where said user inserted his change which seems inappropriate. Deletion of the picture might have been justified, editing its caption it that way was not. It should also be noted that that user seems to have used that article as a talk page (I only just noticed going through the article history) and was recently banned for "disruptive edits"...
 * I hope your message was just a misunderstanding.--Caranorn 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * RE: No, it was not misunderstanding, anyone can change caption of the image if he feels it's better. I just wanted to calm down the situation, because that topic is tagged as controversial, two other editors are trying to change caption now to fulfil NPOV as I saw in the history.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed, I could probably have tried the same, but the text as inserted by the annon was not really an option, so I was rather tending to remove the image which I feared might raise more havoc as I've noticed these topics in general are indeed explosive.--Caranorn 15:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Czechoslovakian films project
How do I create wikiproject related to the Czechoslovakian film? Like WikiProject Film.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Tulkolahten! You can post your idea on the new wikiproject proposal page to see if there is any interest. You can also start one in your userspace, and fill in some information before seeing if others are interested. Use the project startup guide to get it started. Once you have your information up consider inviting some of the people you see are interested in the matter to join, or just notifying them that you have started it up.
 * Good luck in your endeavour! — E ditor at  L arge  ( speak )  22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents
Please do not add accidents/incidents to this list until a wikipedia article has been created for each. See the list's guidelines for details. Thanks. Akradecki 22:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your accident reports
Tulkolahten, please don't be discouraged. All of these sound like they otherwise merit inclusion on the list, but they must first have a Wikipedia article that you can wikilink into. Please build up the relevant accident articles, and then reinsert your items into the list with the respective wikilinks. We do need more non-western items, as the list currently seems to have more western items than others, but all items should follow the inclusion guideline. Thanks for your understanding, Crum375 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)