Hi Roberta, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Neo-Nazism and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. When you return, please discuss your differences on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk)08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've seen you've included a picture taken from flickr in the Motovun Film Festival article. Pictures in infoboxes usually have captions to explain what is shown in the picture, please include some description. Thanks :-) Timbouctou (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
South Slavic languages
Calling a good editor a "vandal" for cleaning up a dreadful article suggests you are not editing in good faith. Please take any points you have to the talk page, but don't revert to a barely legible version of the article. kwami (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit wasn't unsourced either - I added the reference to a standard academic textbook on the Slavic languages. Your edit also wiped out an interwiki link, and reintroduced numerous spelling and grammatical errors. It's an easy mistake to make, but please take more care in reviewing edits, and avoid wholesale block reverts where possible. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"original research"? Please see directly above: "The edit wasn't unsourced either - I added the reference to a standard academic textbook on the Slavic languages". Here's the edit, sourced to Roland Sussex, The Slavic Languages, Cambridge University Press (2006). Knepflerle (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's scientific opinion against.
Miro Kačić, first director of the Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics.
He opposed the grouping of Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian into a diasystem, because in his opinion the application of the term "diasystem" to a language is very questionable. He gave the following argument: "The question is, how to determine the language as a "diasystem"? It would be easy to put all Slavic languages into the category of a diasystem (it is only a matter of criterium), so it could easily be said: Slavic language as diasystem etc". Source: Hrvatski jezik Miro Kačić: Zašto hrvatski ne može nikako biti hrvatskosrpski (excerpt from the book Jezikoslovna promišljanja, Pergamena, Zagreb, 2001., ISBN953-6576-12-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
This might help. Kubura (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prozivanje
Da si procitala znala bi: iako se u drugim stvarima sa tobom ne slazem, slazem se da se u njegovom slucaju radi o originalnom istrazivanju kao sto si ti iznad navela. Imas mozda jos pitanja? --WizardOfOz (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Možda sam pogriješila, ali navela sam konkretan slučaj i ako imaš za usporedbu ovakvu blokadu s još uvijek praznom stranicom za razgovor bez ijedne riječi upućene prijavljenome suradniku s prihvatljivim suradničkim imenom, bez prethodne povijesti neprihvatljivog suradničkog ponašanja (vandalizam, uznemiravanje, zloporaba više suradničkih računa...) i skretanja pozornosti u čemu griješi s ovakvim - 16:40, 23 April 2010 Opiaterein (Talk | contribs) blocked Sokac121 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled - logom blokiranja, slobodno iznesi primjedbu na stranici namijenjenoj za iznošenje primjedbi. Lijep pozdrav :-)) --Roberta F. (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ne mogu je iznijeti jer sam jos uvijek trajno blokiran... bez upozorenja... a nemam se namjeru preko proxija uplicati u takve rasprave kakve se na toj stranici vode, jer me ne interesuju. :) --WizardOfOz (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Croatian
Please do not place personal attacks, such as calling other editors psychotic, in article talk pages. Legitimate points can be made without attacking people. — kwami (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How am I attacking you? I'm asking you not to place attacks of other editors on talk pages.
Removing personal attacks is not vandalism. Please stop restoring them. If the author wants to make those points legitimately, he can. — kwami (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kwamikagami: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."... "Committing vandalism violates Wikipedia policy. If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia you should revert these changes; you may also warn the user (see below for specific instructions). Users who vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and administrators may block them." Sorry, but this is a vandalism. And please, do not attack me (No personal attacks). Have a Nice Day --Roberta F. (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:Um, perhaps you didn't review what you were doing? You're accusing me of attacking you because I asked you not to place personal attacks on talk pages? — kwami (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted edits which contained personal attacks, from an editor with a history of such edits; you restored them and accused me of vandalism. I didn't mean that you wrote it, but you did put it back on the page. — kwami (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block. This will happen even if the incivility is in response to incivility from another editor. The appropriate response to that is to complain, not to respond in kind. I intend to apply this to everybody involved. According to the WP:ARBMAC sanctions, editors can only be blocked if they have been notified of the sanctions. You can find a list of the editors who have been notified at WP:ARBMAC#Log of warnings. If I have missed anybody, please bring it to my intention. I am very serious about this. Looie496 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nove fotografije
Roberta F, molim vas da mi objasnite u cemu je problem sa fotografijom na Zoran Milanovic clanku da je toliko zelite ukloniti. Znam da se nas dvoje nismo slagali na Commons, i zaista se nadam da osobni razlozi ne stoje iza ovoga. Uvjeravam vas da ni iz daleka nemate temelj za optuzbe harassment-a. S postovanjem --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roberta, thanks for adding interwiki links. However, please try to add them in the correct place. It's a little confusing, but the English Wikipedia orders interwiki links by the name of the language in its native tongue. So Croatian (Hrvatski) should go between Hindi (Hindi) and Italian (Italiano), before Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia ... the "Bahasa" part doesn't count in this case because it means "language" in Indonesian). See my edit to fix your link addition at Dentistry, where I discovered this minor issue, for an example. Graham8705:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiWomen's Collaborative
WikiWomen Unite!
Hi Roberta F.! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.
As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!
WikiWomen - We need you!
Hi Roberta F.! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!
Get involved by:
Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
Nažalost, budući da u ovom svojstvu ne koristim mail niti druge slične kanale, za komunikaciju mi je na raspolaganju samo stranica za razgovor... GregorB (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ovako bih rekao o pojedinačnim slučajevima:
Panorama Rijeke - i meni je sumnjivo, ali osobno bih bio malo oprezniji pri sumnjičenju suradnika.
Morčić - svaka umjetnina koja nije u javnoj domeni i ne potpada pod FoP je legitimno upitna kao motiv. Srećom, po diskusiji bih rekao da je problem riješen.
Zastave - vrlo slično kao morčić. Rekao bih da ne potpada pod FoP ("autorska djela koja su trajno smještena", itd.), čak ni uzevši u obzir da zakon nije sasvim dorečen: strogo gledajući, ništa nije trajno tj. ne traje vječno, pa ovdje treba ocijeniti namjeru da se djelo trajno izloži. I moguće rješenje je slično kao za morčić: dokazati da je motiv u javnoj domeni. Ovo neće biti lako, budući da je, kao što znaš, credit odnosno attribution kod nas za vizualne radove u medijima zamalo pa nepoznanica (u tiskanim izdanjima posebno, osim pod novijim, strogim komercijalnim ugovorima - mislim da nitko nikad nije "zaboravio" potpisati npr. Cropix) i da se pitanja autorskih prava obično dočekuju s čuđenjem.
Nisam siguran da članak 89 generalno pomaže. On naprosto preciznije definira situacije koje se imaju tretirati kao fair use. Činjenica da se djelo smije iskoristiti ne znači da se njegov copyright status time mijenja: to bi npr. značilo da su riječke zastave legitiman fair use, ali još uvijek potpadaju pod "reprodukciju" u smislu našeg ZoAP, što znači da na takvu vlastitu fotografiju čovjek ne može staviti CC-BY-SA ili sličnu licencu. Ovo je siva zona: recimo, rekao bih da je ova fotografija u redu, ali već ovu bi netko mogao osporiti (slika Ede Murtića, pod copyrightom, prikazana gotovo u cjelini).
Ne mogu reći da Elleasar griješi u kriterijima: primjenjuje ih pedantno, što pridonosi atmosferi koja se možda nabolje može opisati kao kafkijanska, uz odgovarajuće frustracije. I sam sam bio frustriran dosta puta: cijenim vlastite živce pa zato nastojim biti maksimalno oprezan pri uploadu i posebno pri unosu metapodataka da se ne bih dovodio u takav položaj. Pritom Elleasar sigurno ne nastupa iz nekakvih loših namjera - upravo suprotno, moj dojam je da izvrsno vlada problematikom i nastoji maksimalno razumjeti zakonske i druge okvire, što nije uvijek na štetu fotografija na Commonsu (v. npr. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Croatia/Archive_3#Copyright_rules_on_photos_in_Yugoslavia i posebno zaključak).
Cijenim tvoj rad - jednom sam rekao da si ti sa svojim fotografijama praktički među najproduktivnijim članovima WP Croatia ovdje na en wiki, iako formalno ne sudjeluješ - i zato mi je krivo zbog ovakvih situacija... GregorB (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, ova dva primjera koje daješ su za trenutno brisanje. A daleko od toga da su jedini. Neki put ih ljudi stavljaju iz neshvaćanja copyrighta, ali često ga krše sasvim svjesno...
Postoji razlika između totala, i fotografije koja je ograničena na neki motiv. Kad ne bi bilo razlike, ne bi bilo uopće moguće imati na fotografiji većinu događaja i motiva, što nije ideja zakona. Npr. u Sloveniji ne postoji FoP, a ipak bih mogao iz aviona s 1000 m snimiti panoramu Ljubljane na kojoj se kao detalj vidi zgrada XY, dok bi fotografija iste zgrade u krupnom planu snimljena s ulice došla pod udar zakona. Na izložbi slika bi isto tako bilo nemoguće snimiti smislenu fotografiju, jer bi se na svakoj vidio barem dio neke slike. Međutim, slike na fotografiji su vjerojatno u redu kao dio šire scene ("Predsjednik Mesić razgleda izložbu slika Ede Murtića"), a nisu ako su jedini motiv. Dakle, totali su prihvatljivi, a fotografije usmjerene na zaštićeni (u slučaju Commonsa: potencijalno zaštićeni) motiv nisu. Budući da je teško povući granicu između ta dva slučaja, ovo je nužno siva zona.
Nisam odvjetnik, tako da ne mogu tvrditi da je ovo ispravna interpretacija, ali vjerujem da bi na Commonsu, kad bi postavila pitanje, dobila slične odgovore. Dapače, ono što kod Commonsa ne volim je određena prisila da se postane odvjetnik da bi se razumjela pravila, a najviše mrzim što čak ni to nije dovoljno. No, što je - tu je: kao i kod Wikipedije, prijeđimo preko mana i iskoristimo vrline... GregorB (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bihco (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.
The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.
This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.
note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine
Spotlight - Simplified article translation
Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.
Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.
What's happening?
IEG grant
CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter.
I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
Wikimania 2014
For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
Integration progress
There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.
Integration guides
Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [3]
News in short
To come
Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Roberta F.. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
