User talk:Gligan/Archives/2008/January

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)

Project news

The Intelligence task force has been created.
The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries.
Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome!
{{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.

Articles of note

New featured articles:

New A-Class articles:

Current proposals and discussions

A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.

Awards and honors

Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.

Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600

2. TomStar81 — 5,500

3. Parsival74 — 5,200

4. FayssalF — 3,500

5. Roger Davies — 3,000

6. Ouro — 2600

7. Kateshortforbob — 2250

8. Cromdog — 2,200

9. BrokenSphere — 2000

9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000

9. Maralia — 2,000

12. MBK004 — 1,340

13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250

14. Sniperz11 — 1100

15. Burzmali — 1000

15. Cplakidas — 1000

15. Gimme danger — 1000

15. Raoulduke471000

15. TicketMan — 1000

15. Welsh — 1000

15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Turks in Bulgaria, you will be blocked from editing.

Could someone translate into English the following message from Gligan to Lantonov?

Ах, да и трябва да се спомене само за османските турци в историята, защото другите са тюрки и съвременните турци имат точно толкова право да се нарекат "най-преки наследници" на тюрките, колкото и всички други произлизащи от тях народи. Аз предлагам, като не може да се спори с този човек да се редуваме да премахваме редакциите му (доколкото съм тук).--Gligan (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

--Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:55161478.sP1229321.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:55161478.sP1229321.JPG. 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 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:IMG 5564.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG 5564.JPG. 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 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

You can read about ways of archiving your talkpage here or you can try automatic archiving from Werdnabot like I do. Cheers. --Laveol ^T 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As for images I guess you mean one of those sites. If this is the case you have forgotten to put the relevant tags in. Like {{NGruev}} or {{cc-by-2.5}} or {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} with the proper attributes. --Laveol ^T 08:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When you click on {{cc-by-2.5}} and {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} you'll notice that there is a text explaining that you should include attribution details like this {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}. What you need to add there is the exact spot where you have taken the images from so that the original author of the work is mentioned. --Laveol ^T 08:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've archived the page for you. (Copy-and-paste method). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

За да ти се архивира страницата автоматично, сложи следния код най-отгоре:

{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=30|target=./Archive {{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=Werdnabot|botlink=User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto}}{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}}

(без nowiki границите). Или пък вземи по-простия template от Werdnabot, както предлага Лавеол. age=30 са периода (в дни) на който искаш да се архивира.Lantonov (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help : ) --Gligan (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban warning

I also notice that you have done nothing to clean up your image uploads, despite numerous requests. You are therefore banned from any further image uploads until you can demonstrate a better understanding of our copyright policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, about those images marked as "alcoron", I asked you back in October and got no response. The first thing to do would be to provide the exact link to the site (if possible, to each original image), so we can check if they are indeed free. I'd also suggest you provide more info for the "Skylitzes" ones. I mean, I personally happen to know what the Madrid Skylitzes is, but others won't. I suggest for those you could say:

==Summary==
Image from the [[Madrid Skylitzes]], depicting ...
[[Category:Madrid Skylitzes images]]

Additionally providing a web source would still be good though. I just made that category now, by the way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Then didn't know anything about uploading and I have seen that when Todor Bozhinov uploads an image, he usually puts "martyr" as a sign so I thought I can proceed that way and I put "alcoron". I will try to review my images but currently I am sick and I have exams... Thanks for showing me how should I proceed when uploading images. Best, --Gligan (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you just give me the link to that "alcoron" site or whatever it is? Because now the images are tagged, they are likely to get deleted in a week from now if nothing is done about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But that is not a site, just a sign that I have uploaded them. However, I will try to find the site and will put it in your talk page. --Gligan (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That's bad, of course. That guy Nikola Gruev's site has nice images, but he says that they are all not for commercial re-use ([1]). So, unfortunately, we cannot use them. This is bad news, because Todor has apparently uploaded quite a number of them too. We'll have to delete the lot, unless you could contact Gruev and convince him to license them under cc-by-sa or GFDL.

Please note that I tagged quite a number more of your images besides the two that have the twinkle warning on your talk page, please check my contributions from this morning.

As for the page protection, it was obviously The Wrong Version (TM), as always. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a mistake many people make. We are not a commercial site, but our content must be free for others, including commercial sites, to re-use.

(copied from User talk:TodorBozhinov:) :P.S. In fact, I now see the page on bg-wiki that is linked from {{NGruev}} bg:Уикипедия:Разрешения за ползване на материали/Никола Груев. That page is confusing: It states there that he licensed them under GFDL, but only for use on Wikipedia. That's a contradiction in terms. If it's for Wikipedia only, it isn't the GFDL. I can't read the original mail by him that is included in that page, can you translate? It seems that when he wrote it he may not have been aware what the GFDL actually said. This looks like one unfortunate mess to clean up. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, reading the English wording on that page again, maybe I was a bit quick there. It says "other pictures for another purpose". Could you please clarify for me what the Bulgarian is saying, is Gruev really explicit about it that he's aware that once an image is on Wikipedia, it can be re-used anywhere else? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Laveol explained it for me. Seems the Gruev stuff is okay after all. I'll add the tags to those airport images. Please be so kind and go through your other upload logs at your earliest convenience and add the remaining sources. I've added some info to the Skylitzes ones (I love those!); in that case the pd-art status is of course unproblematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good luck! And thanks for the translations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vidin

Could you please explain this change? --Olahus (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please show me the link to the discussion with User:Mentatus, so I can read it? --Olahus (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Stop vandalising since the result of the poll is against your vandalisation. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vidin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. LightAnkhC|MSG 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vidin

The page Vidin has been protected from editing due to edit warring. Please discuss changes on the talk page; in the future, please consider the dispute resolution process. Note that further edit warring or three revert rule violations may be met with a block.

If you have questions or concerns, I would be happy to answer to them. - Revolving Bugbear 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but my opponent only reverted without discussion and I was annoyed. I know you are right. --Gligan (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the editing gets tough. I would suggest trying to find some common ground to work from, and starting there. There are also a great many editors who will be happy to assist the situation. (I generally am available for mediation but I am currently already involved in multiple cases.) The important thing is to keep your head about you and remember that it's no big deal.

Like I said, if I can do something for you, let me know. I'm here to help. - Revolving Bugbear 20:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, I will keep it in mind and will ask you for help in such cases, thank you : ) --Gligan (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the article Rousse and, I have to say, this is not vandalism; it is a content dispute. Have you considered informal mediation? - Revolving Bugbear 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He is obviously not here now but still, please keep an eye on that article and tell me whether I shall revert possible future vandalism myself or I shall wait for you or someone else to do that. Of course I can start discussion on that matter on Talk:Ruse. --Gligan (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the article. However, like I said, in my opinon this is not vandalism, it is a content dispute. Continued reversion would be inappropriate. I strongly suggest dispute resolution. - Revolving Bugbear 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of the three revert rule at Rousse. Note that neither of you is vandalizing the article, as each of you claims, and both of you are revert warring and editing disruptively. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Revolving Bugbear 17:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Serres

I can see that I am not the only one complaining about your aggressive editing that introduce non-neutral points of view. To respond to your questions: in battles between nations, the idea of "betrayal" is always questionable. Please cite relevant work before using this work. Feel free to reword the "liberated" word in other places as well. I think that the idea of "liberating" an area will always be subjective, given that some other controlling power has "lost the area". I am fine using the word "seized / conquested" instead of "liberated". Ipeirotis (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not understand that you are referring to Bulgarian strongholds. The article does not convey this impression. I would recommend to write in smaller sentences and avoid the use of pronouns. The use of "their strongholds and bases" was ambiguous. "Their" could refer both to Byzantines and Bulgarians. Also, refrain from reverting to a previous edition. I have made other changes to the article that are legitimate and are fixing typos, and you have reverted them. Ipeirotis (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Bulgars

Category:Bulgars, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –-Latebird (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Bulgaria

I saw that you were interested for medieval Bulgaria. Do you know some online book about this subject? --Vojvodaen (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'am studying history in Belgrade so I can find some books on bulgarian (I understand a little). Is Zlatarski history of medieval Bulgaria still good book on this subject.--Vojvodaen (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Zlatarski is always relevant. --Laveol ^T 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am working on the article Vasil Zlatarski. You might want to look at it. It is still unfinished and the text is very raw at the moment but what follows is a critical discussion of all volumes of his history. Lantonov (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Vojvodaen (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)