|
User talk:USchick/Archive1
WelcomeWelcome! Hello, USchick/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. If you are interested you can become member of our Wikipedia Project Ukraine. we need as much articles about Ukraine as possible and thanks for your input about Ukraine and the new article! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks Mariah-Yulia for the warm welcome. I don't see where Dzyhivka was added to the list of cities in Ukraine. Does it take time to show up? I will look for photos to scan. Thanks for your help! USchick (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Mariah-Yulia, I would love to talk to you about this offline. Email me at chillin10@yahoo.com I question that person's definition of a city on the discussion page. I hope he answers, because I think he's wrong. USchick (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, I'll delete. USchick (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Victory!Thanks! Please pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is victory day and why is it on a German stamp? USchick (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Victory that results in freedom is a beautiful thing! USchick (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Дрyг!
Would you mind if we place both this friends Userbox on our user pages? I placed one on mine already, we havn't met yet but we keep in contact so regular we must be friends :) and I feel we are friends! Just fill in my User name in after |name= . Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC) I hope we can behave ourselves and stay out of trouble by association. If you decide to jump off a bridge, I'll miss you, but I'm not following! lol :-) USchick (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Lol :), by the way you seem to spend a lot more time on wikipedia then you used too! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Maybe it's because I have no life at the moment. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll have to work on that. :-) USchick (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Happy New Year!"Дякую тобі"Hello USchick, nice to meet you! There's nothing easier than to find the lyrics for this song, here is one of many pages: http://artvit.ru/songs/authors/okean-el_zi/dakuu-tob-chords.html (with pop-up windows, tho). It's my favorite one, actually, along with "Не питай". I'd be glad to help you with the village article, I'm just busy now retouching my FA candidate at the uk.wiki, gotta create many new "sister" articles to make red wiki links blue. See you!--Betty kerner (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC) List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969Some of the additions you made to List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969 in the miscellaneous section were already listed in the "manned" section. Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Happy New Year!
Articles for deletion nomination of Yellow Van Handyman I have nominated Yellow Van Handyman, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Van Handyman. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ThemFromSpace 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC) apologies
Happy Easter! This year on the same day's in the East and West! Inanna -- Sheela-na-GigIn your quest to link the two, you've been reverted completely separately and independently on both the articles, so please don't make such changes again without discussing things appropriately on article talk pages first. Furthermore, you should be aware that "sacred prostitution" is almost a meaningless term. Sorry I didn't add my comments at the end, but I have no real desire for my comments to be rendered in pink text. AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC) US/UK EnglishPlease don't change articles written in British English to US English. You will see from WP:ENGVAR that articles on medieval art/architecture across Europe should all use British English anyway, just as ones on US subjects should use US English. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Romanesque artHi USchick! I have just reverted your edits to Romanesque architecture and the sculpture section of Romanesque art. Because you are a new editor, I'm leaving you a message here to explain why. Re Sheela Na Gig. Yes it is an interesting subject and worth its own article. In terms of the large generic article on Romanesque architecture, the section dealing with sculpture has been honed down, and most of it removed to the Romanesque art page, because it is not the right place for a long dissertaion on the subject of sculpture. It is sufficient to indicate the main stylistic trends, the major locations of works and illustrate how (broadly) sculpture was used in the context of building. Sheela Na Gig is not essential to a broad understanding. It is better placed elsewhere. Within the Sculpture section of the Romanesque art article, your editting makes it apparent that you did not read, or really look at the context of where you were placing the info. You inserted the info about a very small and minor object into the major explanation of the sources, style and subject matter that affects all Romanesque sculpture, not just the little bit of it that is of specific interest to you. One small subject (Sheela Na Gig) does not take precedence over the broad description and explanation. What is more, you put the pic in, in place of the typanum of Vezelay. Please go back and read that entire sectire. I will make it a bit easier for you by dividing the section into some subsections. If you reread it, you will find that there is actually an appropriate place to put the info on Sheela Na Gig, but keep it short, because there is a whole article on that subject so provided you link it, it doesn't need to be more than... "also the sexually explicit figures of Sheela na Gig" or something equally brief. I want to add that although I might seem tough on you, this type of editting is actually extremely destructive to the articles. What happens is that each article is "watched" or protected by a number of people, particularly in the case of important generic articles. However, not everybody who "watches" knows the subject very well, or writes with "literary style". This means that if you shove real information into an article in the wrong place, it might be left there for weeks and months. The effect might be to make absolute nonsense of two paragraphs that ought to run one after the other, but have been divided by spurious info. But the watcher will not delete the disruptive elemet unless they carefully read the paragraphs and determined the problem that has been caused. It might be quite simple, but sometimes it is complex, so don't add a paragraph or even a sentence unless you really are sure that a) it is necessary to the topic, b) it hasn't been mentioned at another point in the article, c) it is the right place. Here's a typical example: The organ was built in 1924 by Walker and Sons. It has 1500 pipes and two manuals. Power for the bellows is supplied by an electric motor. There are lunchtime recitals on the organ every Tuesday at 1 o'clock during term. It is located in a small purpose-built shed behind the church. It is the electric motor that is in the shed, but this now reads as if the organ is in the shed. Amandajm (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Cookie and coffee  Mariah-Yulia has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Femininity
Feb 21, 2011 Being interested in anthropology I have at times followed the development of this article. A year or so ago it seemed to be taking different POV into account. Now it has given way to an ideological approach, reducing "femininity" to simple physical "femaleness". This is blatantly one-sided, not worthy of an encyclopedia. Femininity, for most people, still suggests distinctive traits of character, ways of behaving, reaction towards others, etc. etc. that go deeper than what is merely physical. This idea is not an outdated cultural or religious prejudice that deserves little notice (here it gets none). It is an idea that has been present over the ages, permeating art and culture. In modern times it was defended by Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead, Virginia Woolfe, etc. not in the name of the Bible, etc. but in that of an objective understanding of the richness of having two distinctive human modes of expressing humanity: the masculine and the feminine. To ignore that viewpoint is the make a totally one-sided and prejudiced presentation. I would suggest a presentation that gives both A) the more 'traditional' view of femininity; and B) the more recent views that react from this concept and tend to reduce the term to a simple difference in body parts. I can write some of the first; and even outline aspects of the second (where I think I could do a better job than what is represented in the current article), and leave the completion of that to others. [Since this is a feeler, so as to see what people think, let me single out just two concrete points in the present article which reveal a narrowness of approach, verging on the ridiculous. 1) large breast size and cleavage are presented as a main parameter of femininity. But this is to talk about femaleness, not femininity. Audrey Hepburn is a classical example of a woman considered very feminine - even though her breasts were small and she had little cleavage. 2) Female body shape and Corset... Here the emphasis on femaleness is again clear. To highlight 'corset', etc. in an article on femininity, is indeed to corset the scope of an encyclopedia article.]Unimpeder (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Feb 27, 2011 From the discussion page about ‘Femininity’, you seem to be one of those who have taken most part in developing this article. A week ago I posted the above on my talk-page, in the hope it might begin a discussion. I would be glad to have your reaction to my proposal, as I think the present article is one-sided and simply not worthy of Wikipedia. However, I see no point in working at a more comprehensive presentation of the theme - if someone is going to revert it each time. So I would like to talk first. A year ago, the article opened in a fairly balanced way: “Distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system, femininity principally refers to secondary sex characteristics and other behaviors and features generally regarded as being more prevalent and better suited to women, whether inborn or socialized. In traditional Western culture, such features include gentleness, patience, sensitivity and kindness.[citation needed]. Nursing certainly calls for such traits, which may well explain the fact that women are generally considered to make better nurses.” The last sentence about nursing was added by me at that time. I see now that this was removed by Uschick in April 2010, after someone had observed “In my experience this [that women are generally considered to make better nurses] is not necessarily true, and nothing this specific should be stated without any supporting sources.” If you want commonsense support of my statement, go out and ask the first ten men and women you meet. I think that the whole paragraph should be restored in the rewriting of the article; one supporting reference might be the following: ‘According to the U.S. Dept. Of Labor. “Women comprised 92.1 percent of RNs in 2003" (http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/qf-nursing.htm).’ The 92.1% says something to the point. [Might someone take this figure as indicating discrimination against women? Perhaps; but he would need good arguments and plenty of [non-biased] ‘supporting sources’] Looking forward to hearing what you think.Unimpeder (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Hello! May I comment here on your recent addition to Deepwater Horizon oil spill?You added "Minerals Management Service is an office within the United States Department of the Interior and receives most of its revenue from leasing federal lands and waters to oil and natural gas companies with a profit margin of 98%. Minerals Management Service is one of the largest revenue sources to the federal government after the IRS. According to Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, there may be a conflict of interest for the Minerals Management Service to collect revenue and also oversee safety." to the Atlantis Oil Field safety practices section. May I ask why? I am new here, so forgive me, as I only want to learn what goes through other editors' minds as they edit. Please reply, so I may give you my opinion on your edit in return. Thankyou! :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Your "minor" edits are notPlease check your default preferences and edit summaries: it is a matter of trustworthiness and timesaving for both you and others to label as "minor" only such things as "typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m)." WP:MINOR Please use the Discussion page for its intended purpose prior to making major structural and semantic changes. Thanks -- Paulscrawl (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Sheela na gig editsHi there You have made a number of edits to the sheela na gig article which have been reverted in short order due them being based on original or spurious research. Can I ask that you discuss any further changes on the sheela na gig discussion page before making any further edits, if nothing else it will explain why your edits are being reverted. Thanks Pryderi (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Там де нам немаВітаю, ласкава пані! Звідки ви взяли, що назва альбому походить саме від російського прислів'я?. В українській мові також є Добре там, де нас нема. --Tomahiv (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Leymah GboweeThank you for your nice message on my talk page. I replied there. Just letting you know, in case you don't have my page on your watchlist. :-) — Sebastian 02:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks &Ukrainian womanThere are a lot of Ukrainian woman and articles about them on wikipedia aren't there Article rating.No problem. If you do some more work on it, feel free to ask for a re-assessment. Claritas § 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Leymah Gbowee DYK issueHi, USchick. Leymah Gbowee needs a citation for the hook, " ... led to the election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia, the first African nation with a female president". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
AnahitHi, I have seen that you participate in Religion project. So, I would ask you to participate in the discussion on the discussion page of Anahit article. I had written some questions to discuss there. I will be thankful for your opinion published there. Thank you in advance, --Zara-arush (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I asked the community, if it is correct to name Anahit - an Armenian goddess of prostitution, as it is written in Azerbaijani article Anais where she is never mentioned as a deity of fertility and maternity, but only she is named as goddess of prostitution (according to psychiatrist Chesare Lobroso) and it is also written nothing about sacred prostitution, but it is written that in the temples devoted to Anahit young girls led dissolute life (распутство) the citation of Strabon). There is a link to the article of Izmailova that writes about goddess of fertility and maternity but the only thing that the Azeri editor took from this article is the named citation of Strabon. I want to know the opinion of the community, if it is correct to describe Anahit only as a goddess as prostitution. To get familiar with other great ideas of the main author of this article one may with the help of Google translator. I consider that Wikipedia is not the proper place for such an article, and want to know about the opinion of the community, if I am right. Thank you for your kind reply, --Zara-arush (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. First of all I do not know Azeri. I used to Google translator just to see what they may write there about, and so the lniks in Russian. Then, I do not understand why they changed the name of Anahit to Anais. the name of Armenian goddess of fertility is Anahit. It may sound like Anaida in Russian transliteration. It is morefunny that as an argument an admin woman wrote about some American film and a prositute character named Anais that at her opinion is not by chance. Now they are in search of further sources about prostitution in modern Armenia and goddess of prostitution. Great research it will be! Something like "great Azeri poet of 12th century Nizami!", "Albanian Khach-dashes", "origin of Oghuz tribes in Armenia", etc. I'll try now to find info, who is Anais in reality. Thanks for your kind words, I really need kind words. In case I may be helpful to you, please contact me, --Zara-arush (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Happy Holidays! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Utusan BorneoI've left you a message here: User_talk:Mkativerata#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Utusan_Borneo. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC) International CricketersI see your speedy nomination of Test cricketer Mary Spry was turned down as all international cricketers, male or female, are deemed notable on Wikipedia. Before making pointless work for yourself and other people, it might be an idea to check the criteria on matters you clearly know little - or nothing - about. Nick mallory (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
SpeedyThese articles have all been de-prodded, and should not be nom'ed for speedy. Explanation is on the talk pages of the articles. I have requested the deleting editor to restore the article speedied while I was unable to edit. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 23rd day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Speedy deletion declined: VijayanarayanamHello USchick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vijayanarayanam, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to places. Thank you. nancy 21:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Re-proddingThat is not how it works. There is alwayss an opportunity to "fix the article" - a contested prod is either dropped or taken to AfD. Simply because I created the article and maintain that it is a suitable subject for an article, does not make me it's keeper. If you have attempted to find sources on Wortman that indicate his notability and failed, then by all means list it for AfD. I am a little concerned that you seem to be on a deletion spree, and as the above example show, are not perhaps as familiar with the process as would be ideal. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC). Speedy deletion contested: Mix n BlendHello USchick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Mix n Blend, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 01:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Speedy deletion contested: Denys WortmanHello USchick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Denys Wortman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 01:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletionsRich already warned you about your speedy deletion spree, so I am going to have to be more serious about it. If you continue to nominate pages for speedy deletion when they clearly do not fit the criteria, you may be blocked. I would suggest holding off on these nominations for now and reading the criteria more carefully so that you do not make these mistakes in the future. Logan Talk Contributions 01:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
A7. : An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.[1] The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. USchick (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Philip Thorpe PriestleyI initially deleted this article per your tagging, but I've since restored it, as the site of which it was an apparent copyright violation appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia, see here. I just thought I'd let you know. -- Lear's Fool 07:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Declined speedyHey there. Just letting you know I declined your G11 speedy nomination of Alexon Group as there is a spam-free version to revert to. Remember, if an article can be fixed by editing it's not a hopeless case. And always check the page history. I see you've received prior notices of declined speedy nominations. Please try to take greater care in your patrols. -- œ™ 07:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Altered speedy deletion rationale: Melih ÖzakatHello USchick. I am just letting you know that I deleted Melih Özakat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- Lear's Fool 12:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC) ANI noticeHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 15:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
internationalYour explanation sounds correct but it can turn into a joke when Fort Wayne, Indiana calls its airport Fort Wayne International Airport. Some airports have classy and understated names, like Changi Airport in Singapore or Gatwick Airport near London. Either that or they think they are so famous that they don't need to brag. Nesteoil (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC) All right...If you want help, here I am. Just to see where you're at, I'll have you go through User:Access Denied/Adoption/CSD Examples. The user (Access Denied) is indeffed, and won't be coming back anytime soon, but his subpages are still quite useful (at some point I may swipe his CSD page and use it to build my own, I've just been too lazy to do it). It looks like you have the easy CSDs down (G3, G10, G12, etc.), but the more nuanced ones are tripping you up a bit. What I want you to do is find the A7s, A9s, and G11s in there, list them here by number, and say 1. which criteria they fit (if A7, then db-person, db-band, etc.) and 2. why they fit that criteria. And just to throw in a little humor, I'm the one who came across Number 20 on NPP and got it put on that page; you should have a laugh at that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Hi Blade, you have a great sense of humor! A7/A9
G11
Edit warring on CSD tagsJust to verify, I assume it's quite clear now that when a CSD tag is removed by someone other than the article creator, it's not to be replaced. Correct? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
ReNormally, you would put the tag back on and give the creator progressive uw-speedy warnings (they're on Twinkle). Yaser Kasim was very unusual in that I tagged it for A3 (which was correct), but by the time I realized the creator had removed the tag there had been content added, so A3 no longer applied and I ignored it; normally, I'd have done what I said above. I'll have a look at the other article in a few hours, when I have the time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I declined the CSD of Walter G. O'Connell Copiague High SchoolI declined the CSD of Walter G. O'Connell Copiague High School. High schools are inherently notable. I realize your tag was not lack of notability, but I didn't see anything in it that made it sound overly promotional. It needs a LOT of work, but I don't see it qualifying as a CSD.--SPhilbrickT 23:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Today a: Thanks
ReI did a couple of minor fixes, but you were pretty much fine. The one thing is that if you bundle articles together, you have to link them to the same AfD- I fixed the links for the two articles you bundled in. The bots would have eventually taken care of that, but it's just one less bit of confusion. I'll have to look through WP:LIST again before opining, but at the moment I agree with your nomination. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC) FemininityFeb 27, 2011 From the discussion page about ‘Femininity’, you seem to be one of those who have taken most part in developing this article. A week ago I posted the above on my talk-page, in the hope it might begin a discussion. I would be glad to have your reaction to my proposal, as I think the present article is one-sided and simply not worthy of Wikipedia. However, I see no point in working at a more comprehensive presentation of the theme - if someone is going to revert it each time. So I would like to talk first. A year ago, the article opened in a fairly balanced way: “Distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system, femininity principally refers to secondary sex characteristics and other behaviors and features generally regarded as being more prevalent and better suited to women, whether inborn or socialized. In traditional Western culture, such features include gentleness, patience, sensitivity and kindness.[citation needed]. Nursing certainly calls for such traits, which may well explain the fact that women are generally considered to make better nurses.” The last sentence about nursing was added by me at that time. I see now that this was removed by Uschick in April 2010, after someone had observed “In my experience this [that women are generally considered to make better nurses] is not necessarily true, and nothing this specific should be stated without any supporting sources.” If you want commonsense support of my statement, go out and ask the first ten men and women you meet. I think that the whole paragraph should be restored in the rewriting of the article; one supporting reference might be the following: ‘According to the U.S. Dept. Of Labor. “Women comprised 92.1 percent of RNs in 2003" (http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/qf-nursing.htm).’ The 92.1% says something to the point. [Might someone take this figure as indicating discrimination against women? Perhaps; but he would need good arguments and plenty of [non-biased] ‘supporting sources’] Looking forward to hearing what you think.Unimpeder (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks, those are very useful comment and suggestions. I take note. Yes, as you say, this is a tough topic. I will take my time (not too much to spare) in trying to make some sort of broader and balanced presentation. This article really takes from the tone of objectivity normally found in Wikipedia. All the best.Unimpeder (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC) WikiProject Women's History needs members' input on implementing auto-assessment. You'll find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History#Auto-assessment. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Waterfalls and othersHi Nice work on the waterfalls article! Any chance you might know anything about Patriarchs? Patriarch Moses (Koulik)
I can look at the patriarch article later today. USchick (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC) I left my comments on the talk page Talk:Patriarch Moses (Koulik). USchick (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Happy International Women's Day! Discussion at Talk:Asian American#Asian American FemininityYou are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Asian American Femininity. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})
It is the 20th and no objection has been heard. Feel free to remove the disputed content at your leisure. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Dzyhivka articleHello USchick! Well, you're very welcome. I believe "Si el mundo os odia" is completely normal Spanish. :) Maybe the phrase would be more common in Spain, though, than in Latin America, where they might tend to say "Si el mundo les odia", because they tend to avoid "vosotros" constructions and the corresponding personal pronoun "os". Cata-girl (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Template discussionI responded on your request on my talkpage; but since I changed my username (I am Mariah-Yulia no more) I think it's best to put a reminder of that here... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Arranging cultures (in a template) per area seems to be the most NPOV way to do it and most common on wikipedia. See Chinese example below:
Thank you, this is a good example. Now what do we call it? The area that these cultures covered include parts of Europe, parts of Asia, parts of North Africa, parts of the Arab states. Do you see the dilemma? :-) USchick (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know enough about these cultures to know how to list them by language.... Grouping by area looks simpler...
Thanks; it feels good to go back Thanks!Thanks for your recent work on the entry List of women who sparked a revolution. I'm glad you're participating in WikiProject Women's History. If you have any questions, concerns, or bright ideas about the project, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Saeed photoI'd hesitate to call you a feminist just because you're adding info about important women throughout history and your name has 'chick' in it--or to characterize any other issue through that lense--but I'm confused about your stance on the Saeed photo. I can't think of a generally progressive viewpoint in which facing the reality of that photo and publicizing it would not be imperative. Why do you think it is inappropriate rather than an important historical testament to police brutality and the individual suffering which contributed to the revolution? (note: I also replaced the image, after leaving an explanation on the talk page, but we should discuss that there, so others can see; I'm asking more of a personal question, if you care to answer)Ocaasi -- (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm just taking a shot here, but... do you think the image is disrespectful, since it immortalizes Saeed in that brutalized state? It won't matter for the copyright claim if that's your motivation or not. I could see how that would be compelling though, although I think it would be outside of our encyclopedic mission to consider that kind of thing, especially when the image has been so widely reproduced elsewhere. You may have a variety of moral or general legal notions prohibiting the use of images of dead people, but I know of know such law nor policy, so long as those images are of a historical nature, widely reproduced, relevant to the article, and they don't violate our WP:BLP policy (Not ironically--it's our biography of living people policy--but it applies to the recently dead as well as their family. We would never add to the victimization of a person by highlighting an embarrassing or degrading image related to a crime against them. And I don't think this image does that either) For what it's worth, I think Saeed's family, as well as the entire nation of Egypt are beyond dedicated to honoring Saeed's death through not forgetting it, not hiding it, and not letting its message be wasted. Not sure if any of that has bearing on your opinion, but if it might... No need to respond, I just had a thought this might be part of your concern. A quick note about law and policy, if you are going to claim something under either, you should cite the exact text which prohibits it. For example, in Wikipedia:Copyright, the exact text is "unless the image is the subject of commentary". If I read that literally, there is no way to interpret it except saying that if the image is discussed and meet's other fair use criteria then it's ok to use. But the law literally does not say that the image must be "the subject" as in "the title". I think that is a misreading of the word subject, which has both a general usage as anything written about and a specific usage as a title. I've never even seen the suggestion that subject = title with regards to copyright, from any editor on Wikipedia, any other legal text, or anywhere else. You're grouping 'subject of commentary' to mean the article title, but the commentary is not the article itself but whatever pieces of the article address the image. It might be a bit of an optical illusion depending on whether you emphasize 'subject of' or 'of commentary', but I assure you that the subject=title reading just doesn't make sense. It's way too restrictive, legalistic in a way which doesn't improve upon any considerations--even for Fair Use opponents--and generally just overly literal. Basically, if you are going to claim that as a definitive reading, you'll have to find some other experienced people or sources to back it up. Ocaasi (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
To the project "Ukraine"Вы свободно говорите по-русски! Это блестяще. Если с чего-то начинать, то со статьи (в русской Википедии) "Коалициада на Украине (2006)". В общем — это очень важный период-2006. --Vles1 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Я не знаю на сколько я буду Вам полезна, поскольку я совершенно не интересуюсь Украинской политикой. Что касается информации из статей – бред как Вы называете, я согласна, но это к сожалению результат редакторов которые берут информацию где попало. В Америке это называется свобода выбора. :-) Я со временем пересмотрю всё, но не скоро, у меня происходят большие события на Английской статье. USchick (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
fair useExcuse me for complicating the issue there, its better to focus on the fair use claim, and to deal with other issues if and when the fair use is accepted or rejected. I think you know my position as regards usage in any wikipedia article, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
To your claim that the image was not published due to copyright reasons, this is from the editor-in-chief of the Daily News Egypt: "The iconic image of the disfigured face of Khaled Saeid will haunt you for a long time. So if you haven't seen it already, think a hundred times before you do. I this newspaper, we unanimously agreed not to run the morgue photographs of the alleged victim of a police beating that has triggered the wrath, horror and indignation of Egyptians and human rights advocates the world over." http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/editorial/death-in-alexandria-dp3.html The newspaper did run this image of a protester holding side-by-side photos of Said before and after his death. You'll notice that the left image is the same one from Masrawy, and the same image from everywhere else. http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/human-a-civil-rights/eu-concerned-over-khaled-saeids-death-dp2.html Ocaasi (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC) p.s. I responded on my talk page as well. Ocaasi (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC) nfcreview discussion editsNormally I don't refactor other comments, and while I appreciate you are trying to guide discussion, remember that at the end of the day, an uninvolved admin will review the discussion and make the determination of consensus - we're only supplying arguments for that. Thus, I have removed those added headers since they are unhelpful to this discussion which is far weighing down the page. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-03-14/Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed Please keep me informed of that case - I see you have agreed to mediate it recently. I'm not sure where any discussion will take place. My own involvement is just that, I have an opinion about it. No policy reason to remove it. I don't understand why the image has been removed - although I'm perfectly happy to accept temporary removal whilst we sort out what is happening (per WP:WRONGVERSION), but this has already been through FFD, DRV, NFC, ANI, etc. etc. I think all arguments have been made, and consensus is keep, and this - medcab - seems to be a case of Wikipedia:OTHERPARENT. So please, let me know what happens with this attempt to finalise things. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to ask me civil and clear questions about the closure, I will entertain them on my talk page. If you wish to rehash the debate which you have started in multiple venues or continue to make veiled allegations about standards of conduct or glancing at policy, I'm afraid I will decline to respond. I will not be watching this space for a reply. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of List of women who sparked a revolution for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of women who sparked a revolution is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women who sparked a revolution until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Ivory CoastHi. There has been a lot of comparison between Ivory Coast and Libya because because they are both civil wars, but the West decided to intervene in Libya, but not in Ivory Coast, so a lot of commentators have used this to highlight what they perceive as western hypocrisy. But the root causes of the tho events are different. The crisis in Ivory Coast started after the 2010 Ivorian presidential elections when the incumbent president refused to step down after losing the elections by a narrow margin. The whole bussines in the Arab world is an entirely different matter. it's about people rising up against autocratic rulers. But you have to remember, that the Ivory coast is not in the Arab World or the MENA region, but in West Africa, and the Civil War there was not influenced by the revolutionary wave in the Arab world. They just happened to coincide, and some people drew paralels between the Libyan war and the ivorian one I hope my answer was helpfull, and I didn't come off as aggressive in the comments the other day :) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2010–2011 Ivorian crisisI'm afraid there has been some confusion over exactly what has been proposed with regard to a possible merger of the 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis article with Second Ivorian Civil War, on which you commented recently. To clarify this, I've relisted the merge request at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Clarified requested move / merger proposal. Grateful if you could state what your preference is. Prioryman (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC) HiAbout the pictures - I might have some of them saved and I never recorded where they really came from, all i know it was from a couple of forums - but they are really really good pictures and it would be a big shame if they could not be put on. So must I just load them on wikimedia and then you can check them out and say if they are fine in terms of copyright etc? See - I have never posted pictures before, so I dont know how it actually works, but I really want to improve the article. For some though i do know where theyc ame from, will give you the adress soon, but for the really good ones I am not really sure where they came from. Yes, I should get an account - I have ben editing now for almost a year on a couple of random IP's - will probably get one soon. Thanks for you help Regards 146.232.75.208 (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Also, can i get into serious trouble if I upload an image - and it has copyright issues, but I didnt know - can I still get into serious trouble? Some links to images i would like to put on: typical cuman warrior mask: http://www.google.co.za/imgres?q=Cuman+warriors&um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=zJE4bpdA6Z2LIM:&imgrefurl=http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php%253Ft%253D187774%2526page%253D15&ei=pending&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=426&vpy=329&dur=2180&hovh=275&hovw=183&tx=119&ty=181&oei=OSScTdOPOMfn4ga7z5D2Bg&page=3&tbnh=142&tbnw=79&start=51&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:51&biw=1259&bih=795 Here is another one: I only want to post one picture from here: the picture with the blond man and woman (as it accurately portrays how the Cumans looked - blond-according to many reports and countries from the middle ages) - its a big one and I am not sure how to minimise it. The picture is supposed to be set in the Bulgarian empire - where the Cumans settled, with a Bulgarian soldier in the background. Another nice picture that I might want to post is the fourth one on top of the one with the 2 blond Cumans - the one where a Cuman, Albanian and Italian mercenary is shown. - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=193607 Here are two more pictures - the top two, one shows the Cumans fighting against the mongols: http://wargamesfactory.lefora.com/2009/04/08/15mm-kipchaks-cuman-and-chernye-klobukioh-my/ There was 2 more pictures which I want to put up, but at the moment cant find them. When I do, I will post the adress... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
By searching for "Cuman" on Commons, this is what I found File:Kunlaszlo.jpg, File:Radzivill Chronicle Cumans.jpg, File:Arm-100r.jpg, File:Kunkereszt Belez.JPG, File:AlzbetaKumanska kralovna.jpg USchick (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
>>Which forums describe this? - I want to check it out, give me an adress, sounds interesting. This is the first time I have heard of the Komi people, but yes, from the name Komi - Kuman there is similarity and they are both blond, so they very well could be a branch of the Kumans, but then again the name could be a coincedence and there were lots of other people with blond hair, not just the Kumans - but there is still a godd chance there could be a link. I will try to research about this. I dont think the pictures come from a childrens book - if you are saying there is a chance they could come from there - the drawings look professional - it sure does look like a proper history book. Thank you a lot for your help, appreciated :-) Regards 146.232.75.208 (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC) By the way, I finally created an account - Smart Nomad Smart Nomad (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi USchick, sorry for not getting back to you about the pitcures and the other stuff you posted. Will definitely get back to you soon (havent had a lot of time latley, I do apologize). Kind Regards, Smart Nomad (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Birth CertificatesThank you for your message. Unfortunately what you are adding to the talk page is not about "the development of an article". They are about you analysing two birth certificates, and wishing to discuss with others what they make of them. That is not the purpose of the talk page and none of the discussion you propose having would determine anything on the article itself. No-one cares what conclusions Wikipedia editors have personally reached about the images. The only way this comparison would be a valid discussion would be if a good source had performed the comparison, and the discussion was about whether, and how, it should be in the article. Do you know of a source that has done this? If we let discussion on the talk page drift away from the focus of improving the article, especially on topical and disputed subjects like this, it quickly gets out of hand, and meaningful discussion on the article itself gets lost. That's why I've been trying to keep off-topic discussion off the page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Members' input needed at WikiProject Women's HistoryHello. I'm writing to you as your name is listed on the members page for WikiProject Women's History. In recent discussions at the project, most notably here, several members have indicated that the scope of the project may need to be more clearly defined and communicated. I have set up a workshop page for this, but it obviously needs as wide a participation as possible to achieve genuine consensus and to allow the project to move forward. You'll find the workshop here. If you no longer consider yourself an active member of the project, it would help if you could indicate this on the members' page. This will allow us to better gauge how much people-power we actually have. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigationRegretfully, I've opened a sockpuppet investigation regarding your edits at Femininity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please respond at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USchick. Chester Markel (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Women's History Project – Final call for comments on the Scope draftOur workshop on revising and clarifying the scope of our project has produced a draft outlining our project's scope and criteria for article inclusion. Please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Scope workshop#Scope draft to discuss this document. There's a separate section beneath it for final comments, which will remain open through Tuesday, June 14th. As Cynwolfe says "with good participation, we should be able to revise our project page soon, clearing up the issues we've been dealing with and preparing us to go on to the fun stuff." Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC) I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
.jpg){kind=link}